In a post in August, 2014 (HERE), the California Business Litigation blog wrote about a lawsuit filed by Cal200. That suit alleged that many school districts in California were failing to meet the elementary school standard for PE of 200 minutes for every 10 school days. Among the districts named in the suit were Los Angeles Unified, Riverside Unified, San Francisco Unified and Palm Springs Unified.

The update is that 37 school districts have agreed to a settlement. The settlement requires all elementary schools in the districts to prove they are providing at least the minimum amount of physical education required by California law.

Elementary school teachers for grades 1 through 6 will be required to document how many minutes of physical education students receive. Further, that documentation must be made available to the public.

The lawsuit was filed because PE teachers, the California State Legislature and public health advocates have had little success in getting school districts to comply with the state requirements. The requirements were rarely enforced and essentially “had no teeth”.

The attorney for Cal200 stated “We think it’s a huge accomplishment and it’s going to benefit public health in California”.

Immigration issues are nothing new in the U.S. In the Los Angeles Unified School District, officials and teachers have long dealt with students who may not have been in the country legally. The LAUSD is the second largest school district in the nation. This fact, coupled with California's high immigrant population, means that there are thousands of students in the city who are at risk for being deported.

Many of these youths are no longer under the care of their families. The parents may have already been deported or some tragedy has befallen that casts the child adrift. With limited resources, these children face immigration courts without the benefit of adult guidance and certainly without legal counsel.

A new resolution passed by the LAUSD is aimed at addressing this. The general counsel's office for the school district proposed offering students free legal help with deportation issues. Interested lawyers are permitted to represent one student at a time. They are limited to providing between one and three hours each week to the student. Thus far, 10 attorneys employed by the district have expressed interest in joining this strictly volunteer endeavor. The school district would require the lawyers to make up any work time that they devote to providing free legal services.

The resolution passed, but not without dissent. Some board members expressed concern that so much focus was being given to one legal issue when families within the school district could easily be facing many other troubling legal situations without benefit of counsel. Moreover, there are so many students in the LAUSD who are facing deportation, that it seems certain that the 10 involved attorneys can't possibly address all of their needs.

Nonetheless, the need for these minors to have legal representation is clear. Statistics suggest that nearly three quarters of students who have legal counsel and are facing deportation are allowed to remain in the country. Only 15% of children who do not have a lawyer receive permission to stay in America. This new program is an important step in protecting the legal rights of students attending L.A.'s public schools.

One of the questions I hear frequently is about whether we are accepting new clients.

While the short answer is “Yes”, here is some additional information which many people find interesting.

Our law firm, Sylvester Oppenheim & Linde is committed to client service and quality legal representation for each and every client. That means that we only accept clients who we feel are a good match for our expertise, experience and areas of practice.

I learned a long time ago that we can’t be all things to all clients, but we can be all things to some clients: and those are the ones we accept and serve in an exemplary manner.

The purpose of this blog is to provide helpful information to anyone who reads it. On our website, you will find another example of our “Be of Service” attitude by reading our Home Page Article “Eleven Questions to ask BEFORE Hiring a Business Attorney”. You will also find a list of our practice areas on that page.

Our clients tell us that they appreciate our honesty, accessibility and guidance. And we appreciate our clients.

Back to the question. The answer is: “Yes, we are always looking for one or two new good clients.” If you have a legal issue, I invite you to call and let’s find out whether we are a great fit for each other. I can be reached at 818-461-8500 or via the Contact form on this page.

Nevada parents Jennifer and Jason Lamberth thought everything was going well with their 13 year-old daughter, Hailee. She was enrolled as a seventh grader at White Middle School in Henderson. The day that her life came to a tragic end, she had been named student of the month in her math class. She was so excited about the honor that she sent a text message to her parents just after it happened.

A few hours later, Hailee took her own life. Unbeknownst to her parents, Hailee had been suffering bullying for months. Two students, one male and one female, had routinely taunted her. They left notes in her locker and threatening voicemail messages on her phone. They caused her to cry on an almost daily basis. Other students knew that the bullying was taking place. At least one of the incidents had been reported to the Clark County School District's website.

The website contained a page where students and other concerned members of the public could anonymously report instances of bullying. According to law, district officials are required to investigate such reports within 10 days. Part of the investigation is informing the bullied student's parents about the incident.

However, Jennifer and Jason Lamberth say that no such investigation was ever conducted on Hailee's behalf. Because there was no investigation, they never knew that their daughter was suffering daily torment at the hands of fellow students. That's why they are now suing the school district. They believe that if the district had followed their own policies that Hailee might not have shot herself.

Although the Lamberths are asking for monetary damages, no amount is disclosed in court documents. The parents say they cannot put a price on the life of their daughter. Instead, the lawsuit is a means of ensuring that the school district comes up with adequate policies to deal with bullying and that those policies are strictly followed.

An elementary school teacher with 24 years of experience has been fired in Arizona. Pamela Aister, who was teaching fourth grade at Four Peaks Elementary School, was fired by officials from the Fountain Hills Unified School District after a bullying incident on the playground.

Aister was supervising children on the playground when she noticed that a group of students had encircled a single African-American boy. The boy was Malachi Gillis, a 9 year-old who had recently transferred into Aister's class. Gillis had a difficult history at the school. He joined Aister's class after being repeatedly bullied by other students. Although Gillis had reported the bullying to his former teacher, playground aides and other adults, little had been done to rectify the situation.

Gillis alleges that the other students routinely used racial slurs and called him other names. When he could not get help from the grown-ups at his school, he became depressed. Eventually, he was moved to a different classroom, but the bullying didn't stop.

What changed was that Aister stood up for her student when she saw him being threatened on the playground. Aister claims that she merely compelled the children to leave Gillis alone, telling them that, "He's not alone anymore. If you're picking on him, you're picking on me." One of the students accused of bullying Gillis reported the confrontation to parents who made a complaint to the district. Aister was fired for allegedly having used threatening language to students.

Aister has hired an attorney to represent her in the matter, although no lawsuit has been filed yet. Meanwhile, they are gathering support for their cause of having Aister reinstated in the classroom by holding press conferences and getting the word out about the situation. Gillis' mother, Jennifer, notes that she may sue the district over the bullying and their refusal to do anything about it.

A Change.org petition has already gathered far more than 100,000 signatures aimed at getting Aister's job back. Nonetheless, the district maintains its position that the well-being of students must always be put first and that Aister violated that trust.

A Virginia federal district court recently ruled that a student has the right to sue his high school principal after the school official conducted a search of the student's cell phone.

The student, identified in the lawsuit only as W.S.G., was called into the principal's office on suspicion of marijuana use. Two parents reported use of marijuana on a school bus by a long haired male student. W.S.G. vaguely fit the description given by the parents, so Assistant Principal Robert A. Turpin III and Associate Principal Diane Saunders' called him to Saunders' office.

W.S.G. wasn't certain why he was summoned, but he complied with the principals' search of his pockets and backpack. Turpin also performed a pat down while Saunders reviewed a Vaseline jar and a sandwich wrapper.

The federal district court agrees that school officials were justified in searching these items. However, the judge believes that the principals erred when they searched W.S.G.'s cell phone. Rationale behind the finding concludes that W.S.G. could have concealed marijuana in his pockets, backpack, the Vaseline jar or the sandwich wrapper. However, drugs could not be hidden in the cell phone. In the judge's opinion, Saunders' search of the cell phone was a violation of the student's Fourth Amendment rights.

W.S.G.'s initial complaint made other allegations that the judge does not believe were justified. The defendant alleged a charge of assault and battery based on the pat down he received, an idea that the judge rejects outright. Moreover, W.S.G.'s assertions that the Henrico County School Board was liable for failing to properly train personnel on search procedures were judged to be groundless. The judge pointed out that the defendant had failed to prove a pattern of deliberate indifference on the part of the school board.

Despite the finding that the cell phone search was likely unreasonable, the judge said that Saunders might have had reason to conduct the search if she thought she would find evidence of text messages or other communications regarding a supplier. With the evidence on hand, he could not conclude that she had a proper incentive for the search.

A Pennsylvania school district recently settled a lawsuit involving a former school psychologist. The Burrell School District was sued by Kristin Serluco after she was furloughed in 2011. Serluco claimed that the furlough was inappropriate, and that the district owed her compensation.

The school district made a strategic decision to settle the suit. Lee Price, acting as solicitor for the district, noted disappointment in the outcome. However, they were unwilling to accrue greater legal fees, and they wanted to continue with the outsourcing project that had necessitated Serluco's furlough.

Serluco had been employed with the district as a psychologist since 2000, and had held a tenured position since 2003. Tenure gave Serluco seniority, but when the district wanted to take cost cutting measures they decided to let her go.

Prior to 2011, the district contracted with the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit to staff its special education program. Then they decided they would rather offer in-house special education. The switch was projected to save the district some $25,000 annually. An administrator who would oversee the special education program would have to be hired. At the same time, Serluco's job would be eliminated, mainly because her certifications did not include the supervision of teachers. The district went on to complete an outsourcing contract with Westmoreland for a psychologist.

Outsourcing meant that the district would not need to have a full-time psychologist on staff. In court documents, lawyers for the district noted a $144,000 annual savings because of the changes. Counsel for Serluco disagreed, estimating that the district likely only saved about $20,000 per year.

In December of 2013, Judge Gary Caruso found in favor of Serluco, awarding her some $200,000 in back wages. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant were satisfied with the outcome, and both appealed to a higher court.

In the final settlement, the district will pay Serluco $175,000 in back wages and will no longer be obligated to hire her back. Many details of the settlement are being kept confidential.

An enigmatic organization called Cal200 has come forward with a lawsuit that charges more than three dozen school districts with providing inadequate time for physical education. Los Angeles Unified, Riverside Unified, San Francisco Unified and Palm Springs Unified are all named among the defendants.

The complaint contends that students in the first through sixth grades in these districts are not being given the state mandated minimum time for PE. California state law dictates that students should participate in PE activities for about 20 minutes every day. The economic downturn of a few years ago meant that schools were receiving less and less funding for physical education classes. This meant that most elementary school students spent time with a designated PE teacher just once or twice a week. The students' regular teacher was supposed to supplement this time in the classroom. The reality is that it is extraordinarily hard for teachers to fit in PE while also trying to produce the high scoring students that the system requires.

Cal200 may be seeking to take advantage of this lapse. The group appears to have started only recently with the rather vague intention to raise awareness of the limited time students are given for PE. Visits to the group's website and emails with its president, Marc Babin, elicit next to no information about the group's activity, its membership or its purpose.

It's well known that teachers have little opportunity to squeeze PE into an already packed day. An attorney working with some of the school districts named in the suit noted that Marc Babin has no discernible relationship with many of the districts.

An attorney for Cal200 has asked that teachers submit lesson plans for review so that it can be determined just how much PE the students are participating in. Time will tell if the districts settle the dispute to make the problem disappear, or if the court will rule on the issue of Cal200's standing to file this lawsuit.

Girls attending middle school in the Pasadena Unified School District have declared victory in a battle over equal access to sports. The students were assisted by the California Women's Law Center and the Employment Law Center of the Legal Aid Society. Because no lawsuit was filed, the claim was settled informally outside of court.

The trouble centered around the school district's Pasadena LEARNs program. An after school and summer program, Pasadena LEARNs offers students enriching experiences from kindergarten through high school. Participating students may get help with homework, take performing arts classes, attend field trips and enjoy other academic activities. The program also boasts a full menu of sports. However, girls at the middle school level quickly learned that there was little opportunity for them to be involved in this aspect of the program.

Through the Pasadena LEARNs program, boys had their pick of flag football, soccer and basketball. Although most of the sports leagues were labeled as co-ed, very few girls were making the cut to play on teams. The parent of a female middle school student brought forth the complaint about a year ago when her daughter failed to make the cut on the co-ed basketball team. Other parents had also noticed that the so-called co-ed teams were heavily unbalanced in favor of boys.

A Title IX complaint was launched against the district. Title IX is a portion of the Education Amendments of 1972 that provides all students equal access to all academic and sports facilities regardless of gender. The district maintains that their after school program was in compliance with Title IX all along. Nonetheless, they are now offering girls' basketball and soccer programs and may be adding volleyball in the future.

Both sides were happy to settle the matter outside of the courtroom. The agreement saved significant costs and achieved an equitable result. Now girls who participate in the Pasadena LEARNs program will have leagues of their own and equal treatment as far as equipment, facilities, coaching and recruiting. The agreement appears to be a win-win situation for everyone involved.

Parents whose teenage daughter was prescribed birth control pills without their knowledge or consent are suing a high school psychologist and his wife. Anthony and Eva Jackson, plaintiffs in the suit, name James Tosto and Dawn Tosto as the two individuals who allegedly conspired to allow their daughter to obtain birth control pills without seeking their consent.

James Tosto works as a psychologist for the Peekskill School District in New York. His wife, Dawn, works at the Hudson River Community Health Center, an off campus clinic to which the underage student was transported in June of 2011. Once there, she underwent a physical examination before being prescribed birth control pills. She took the pills home and took several days' worth of them before her parents discovered them.

The Jacksons are concerned that their daughter was removed from the school campus, received a physical examination and a prescription without their knowledge or consent. Under New York State law, health services to minors cannot be administered without parental consent. As the Jackson's attorney contends, that is precisely what happened in this case. Moreover, the Jacksons fear that other underage students may have received similar health services without the knowledge of their parents. In the complaint, plaintiffs allege that their filing is: "on behalf of all other parents whose children were subject to physical examinations" and "given access to and/or distributed birth control without the parents knowledge, consent or opportunity to opt out...".

In an unusual twist, the plaintiff Anthony Jackson is also an employee of the Peekskill School District, though he does not work at the same school where James Tosto is a psychologist. It appears that Jackson is currently on leave from his position as a teacher and coach at Woodside Elementary School. His daughter has since graduated from high school, but her parents are clearly still troubled by the events of 2011.

The Jacksons are hoping to win their attorney's fees in addition to compensatory and punitive damages in the suit. The school district has yet to comment as they have not been served with the complaint thus far.

In late May, the ACLU filed a class action lawsuit in Alameda Superior Court. The case, entitled Cruz et al. v. State of California, alleges that students in seven public schools receive inadequate learning time over the course of their educational career.

At the heart of the problem is a disparity in the quality of education received by students participating in different portions of the state's education system. Many students in California attend well-funded schools that offer a wealth of class options. The presence of teachers and administrators is predictable, and close tracking of qualifications keeps students on the road to graduation and prepared to enter college.

However, other California students are not so fortunate. They participate in a volatile school system where there are not enough teachers and administrators seem to come and go. These schools have few resources and less money. They aren't able to offer challenging curriculum and, in some cases, students are given free periods or assigned to finish administrative tasks when there aren't enough classes to take.

The result is a student body that receives very little quality education time. Essentially, though they may spend years attending school, their learning and accomplishments are far below the standards set at other, better equipped schools. Students at underperforming schools may lag behind their peers by months in terms of learning time. Moreover, the progress of students in these schools is often not tracked adequately. Many seniors get closer to graduation only to be surprised that they have not earned all the necessary credits. Others graduate, but feel they are unprepared to continue their education.

The lawsuit (available HERE) hopes to address these issues by providing greater equality in educational opportunities. A main claim in the suit argues that the state is in violation of the California constitution which requires equal protection to all learners. The ACLU contends that the state has long been aware of the problems plaguing these schools, but has yet to address the issue meaningfully. If successful, the suit would establish a system for tracking where students are lagging behind their peers and would quickly move to correct these issues.

Children with autism face a number of challenges. It isn't easy for them to relate to others, and life changes can prove distinctly distressing for them. That's why a practice of moving autistic children from one school to another in the Philadelphia School District with little warning was so troubling.

Parents whose autistic children attended public school in Philadelphia called the practice the "autism shuffle." Children in kindergarten through eighth grade were subject to being moved from one school to another in order to receive the support they required. Some schools simply weren't equipped to deal with the needs of autistic children as they advanced through grade levels. Essentially, the district had divided the support services into three categories. One for kindergarten through second grade, the next for third through fifth and the last for sixth through eighth. When a child was moving beyond the service level provided at their current school, they would be abruptly sent to another one. Parents had no input, and the transitions were often alarmingly difficult for the children.

A class action lawsuit was filed in an effort to improve the practice. Recently, a settlement was reached between the parents with autistic children and the school district. District officials have agreed to halt the practice of immediately moving children from one school to the next. Under the new deal, parents will be informed by January if the district expects their child to attend a different school in the fall. A formal notice letter will be sent out in June.

Parents have the right to meet with district officials to discuss the changes and, unlike before, they have plenty of time to do so. The new agreement also makes it easier for teachers to help their vulnerable students prepare for changes on the horizon. Best of all, the students themselves have time to adjust to the idea of attending school in a different environment. They may have time to visit the school before the term begins to familiarize themselves with their new surroundings. The decision appears to be a win for the students and the district.

In 2011, the state of Florida passed a law that changed the way teachers would be compensated. Student performance on standardized tests would now have a direct bearing on how teachers were evaluated and whether or not they would get pay increases. Simply put, teachers whose students fared better on standardized tests would receive better evaluations and better pay. Teachers whose students underperformed were likely to see the results in their paychecks.

The bill was not passed without controversy. In fact, Governor Charlie Crist initially vetoed the bill in 2010. The next year a new governor was in office, and the bill was passed. Lawsuits were filed almost immediately. Teachers in three counties filed suit, and they were joined by the National Education Association and the Florida Education Association. The lawsuit was initiated in the Gainesville Federal Court. Plaintiffs in the case argued that creating a connection between standardized test performance and teacher merit pay was unconstitutional.

The judge recently handed down a decision that was declared a victory by the state's department of education but was decried by the plaintiffs as disappointing. Essentially, Judge Mark Walker decided that although the evaluation system is unfair, it is not within his authority to overturn the law. He was forced to dismiss the lawsuit, writing that the case "is not about the fairness of the evaluation system." Instead, he based his decision on questioning "whether the evaluation policies are rational within the meaning of the law." In his decision, the judge found that the law was not unconstitutional.

Department of Education spokesman Joe Follick is happy with the dismissal, saying that the department is "pleased that we can put the focus where it should be -- ensuring all students receive the best education possible."

That single-minded focus may not yet be possible. Plaintiffs are still considering whether or not to appeal the decision. For now, teachers in Florida will continue to see compensation that is directly tied to standardized test scores, even if those scores come from test subject matter that is not instructed by the teachers who pay will be affected.

Whether or not a public school district can require a teacher to submit to psychological examination is at the heart of a lawsuit recently filed in Michigan. The math teacher from Huron High School, who remains anonymous in the filing, states in her complaint that she was placed on leave from her job back in December 2013. At the time, district officials had already scheduled a psychological exam to happen in January 2014 before the teacher would be allowed back in the classroom.

The instructor balked at the requirement, despite the fact that the district is within its rights to request such an evaluation based on its current agreement with the teachers' union. In her complaint, she alleges that the examination is essentially a violation of her 4th Amendment rights, and that it constitutes an illegal search.

Details regarding the circumstances that led up to the teacher being put on leave are scant. She was assigned to a new class at the beginning of the school year called Math Analysis. Another teacher was also assigned to teach a different division of the course, and both teachers used the same syllabus. However, just a few months into the school year, the school began receiving complaints from parents about the teacher who was subsequently put on leave and filed a lawsuit. Among the complaints was an allegation that the teacher had spoken out in the classroom against gay marriage.

Nonetheless, the math teacher maintains that she has not verbally or physically abused any students, parents or co-workers, and that she did not deserve to be put on leave and should not be required to submit to a psychological examination. The school district differs without mentioning many specifics. However, statements suggest that the teacher has in fact violated district policies and has somehow engaged in discriminatory acts.

While the district cancelled the psychological examination at the teacher's request, they are still requiring completion of the evaluation before she returns to the classroom. In the meantime, the lawsuit is still pending, with the plaintiff seeking damages for lost wages and physical and emotional distress.

A Massachusetts high school student who landed in hot water after posting a profane tweet has successfully enlisted the ACLU to intervene on his behalf. The student, Nick Barbieri, is a senior at North Attleboro High School. His school sent a tweet in early February that informed students of a class cancellation because of inclement weather. The tweet ended with a "See you in June," which Barbieri seems to have interpreted as a sarcastic tagline referring to the makeup day that would be required in June.

Barbieri responded with a tweet of his own that read, "F--- off." It wasn't long before school officials were calling his home and demanding that the tweet be deleted. The student complied, and assumed that the situation was at an end.

However, when school resumed, Barbieri found himself being pulled out of class multiple times to discuss the situation and the punishment that the school was contemplating. Barbieri faced a minimum six hours of detention, and may have been subject to suspension.

He took to Twitter once again, sending messages about the school's response and the pending punishment. North Attleboro High responded by asking him to delete these tweets as well. Frustrated, Barbieri finally sent a tweet directed to the ACLU, asking that they help him to protect his right to free speech as it is guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Stepping in quickly, an ACLU lawyer drafted a letter (available HERE) to school officials that asked them to reconsider their approach to the situation. The letter pointed out that the school did not have the right to punish a student for his remarks while off school property, even if those remarks related to the school. Moreover, the letter suggested that the school actually owed Barbieri an apology for seeking to punish him for speaking his mind.

The letter worked. North Attleboro High reversed its decision to punish Barbieri for the tweet, and his record has been cleared. Barbieri remains philosophical, noting that social media is unexplored territory for many, and that schools will have to deal with the fact that tweeting invites comments from others.

A trial that may prove to involve a landmark decision began this week in Los Angeles County Superior Court. At issue is regulations that govern teacher tenure and dismissal practices.

The complaint was filed in 2012 on behalf of nine California public school students who live in economically disadvantaged regions. With the backing of a nonprofit organization called StudentsMatter that advocates for equal educational opportunities, the lawsuit aims to change the way teachers keep their jobs and how they can be dismissed.

Currently, public school teachers receive tenure after 18 months. The tenure regulation, which essentially guarantees that a teacher will have permanent employment, applies to all teachers regardless of their performance. Another issue is the state's last in, first out policy. When layoffs loom, it is the teachers with the shortest service record who are the first to go, again without regard to their performance. The lawsuit also takes issue with a particularly inefficient and expensive dismissal process that makes it unduly burdensome for schools to get rid of teachers who are not effective or who have had serious complaints made against them.

The lawsuit claims that these regulations are particularly detrimental to the quality of the education received by disadvantaged California students. It alleges that teachers with poor performance records are frequently sent to low income areas that are seen as less desirable in terms of employment. The result is an inferior education for students in these areas.

Two teachers unions, the California Federation of Teachers and the California Teachers Association have both declared vehement disapproval of the litigation, stating that it demonizes teachers and is not aimed at actually correcting any of the problems that are faced by California schools. Should the lawsuit succeed, the unions say that the state may have problems attracting and retaining well qualified teachers.

Defendants have tried on three occasions to have the lawsuit dismissed. These efforts have failed, and with the case now in the hands of a judge, it will be some time before it is known whether or not this lawsuit will have implications for teachers in California and elsewhere.

A Memphis, Tennessee kindergarten teacher is in hot water after locking a student in the classroom closet, and then forgetting about her.

The five year old, who says she was put in the closet because she "was playing too much" was left in the closet for more than an hour after the teacher, Kristin Ohsfeldt, went home sick. The substitute teacher who filled in for Ohsfeldt discovered the scared, shivering Akeelah Joseph, and then informed the elementary school principal of the incident.

The principal contacted police and the student's mother. Although police have looked in to the incident, they have yet to file any charges. Wanda Joseph, Akeelah's mother, arrived at the school shortly after being informed of what had occurred. Apparently, Akeelah has asthma, and the possibility that she could have suffered an attack while alone in the closet added to the mother's outrage.

The district has suspended the teacher while the incident is being investigated. According to other students in the class, Ohsfeldt was generally considered to be a "nice" teacher, but this was not the first time a student had been placed in the locked closet. A grandmother whose grandchild is in the same kindergarten class as Joseph says that the closet is meant to be a time out place. Ohsfeldt typically provided children with a reading book or beads to count while they are in the closet. However, parents do not seem to have been made generally aware of the practice.

For now, the principal will be conducting an interview with Ohsfeldt to gain her perspective on the incident. The results of this interview will be forwarded to the Board of Education, which will likely have final say as to whether or not Ohsfeldt will be terminated. The police investigation is still pending, and the state's Department of Child Services is also looking into the matter. While no lawsuit has yet been filed by Joseph's mother, it seems almost inevitable that at least the teacher and the school district will eventually become embroiled in related court proceedings.

A New York school district has avoided a costly lawsuit by settling with a former teacher out of court. Thomas A. Snyder, a retired teacher formerly of the Chenango Valley Central School District, filed the lawsuit in 2013. The move was a response to the Board of Education's refusal to hire a defense attorney for Snyder who had been accused of harassing a student.

The incident involved a 15 year-old who was on an academic support plan. Under the plan, the student believed he was entitled to extra time to complete an test. Snyder disagreed, and stated that he planned to give the student a zero on the test. Alyssa Driesbaugh, a teacher's aide who was present in the classroom at the time, testified through a supporting statement that Snyder had "started yelling and pointing his finger (at the student)" when they disagreed over whether or not extra time should be allowed on the test.

A formal police complaint was filed by the student, and Snyder was charged with second degree harassment. Snyder immediately went to the school board to request legal assistance with the matter, but was refused. He subsequently sued the district with the help of attorneys from New York State United Teachers. This organization is a union that provides support and assistance to teachers throughout the state.

In a confidential settlement that was signed on October 17, 2013, the school district made an agreement to pay Snyder nearly $8,000 if he would withdraw the lawsuit. In the agreement, the school district explicitly denied any liability in the matter.

Snyder retired shortly after the incident, and it appears that the school district made a wise decision by seeking a efficient, confidential settlement rather than going forward with a lawsuit that would surely have brought negative media attention.

Controversy over the separation of church and state is brewing in Montana. The trouble began when two high schools were invited to perform at a Christmas event taking place at a Kalispell Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It's a two day event featuring several music acts and a display of nativities.

The schools accepted the invitation as it gave students an opportunity to participate in a community event and gain extra performance experience. However, two organizations have taken exception to the involvement of the schools. The Freedom from Religion Foundation has sent a letter to the schools, asking that they cancel the scheduled performances. A similar request was made by the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana. Both organizations feel that the participation of public school choirs at the event constitutes an endorsement of a religion.

At attorney for the Freedom from Religion Foundation calls the celebration "a worship service" and likens the performance to singing in the church choir. The superintendent for Kalispell Public Schools argues that no sponsorship of religious beliefs will be implied by the performances. Instead, the district views this as an opportunity for the students to perform in a public venue.

Another point of contention for the protestors is whether or not the students are essentially being coerced into the performance. While district officials state that students always have the choice to opt out of certain activities based on religious beliefs, the Freedom from Religion Foundation and the ACLU insist that in this instance, this is not a choice students should have to face. They cite the enormous pressure teens commonly feel to fit in, saying that most students will go along with the performance even if it violates their beliefs so that they won't be seen as troublemakers.

Despite the letters of protest, the school district seems determined to continue with the plan for the choirs to participate in the event. They seem to be taking the protests in stride, arguing that the festival is a public event that many people attend for artistic reasons rather than out of any religious convictions.

A math teacher in California is back in the classroom after a plea deal in which he pled guilty to one count of misdemeanor battery. Thomas Britain is a math teacher in the Corona-Norco Unified School District, and was accused of inappropriately touching a student in 2012.

Readers of this blog know that we rarely write about teacher/student sexual or inappropriate contact events and/or lawsuits. The traditional press covers them and they happen too frequently, all across the US. This isn’t about the event between a 12 year old and her teacher. It is about the legal and bureaucratic system that allowed the teacher back in the classroom.

The student, a 12 year-old who was a student in Britain's class, alleged that he had slapped her backside one day as she bent to retrieve her cell phone from the floor. No other students were present at the time, although the student alleged that her friend witnessed the incident from the hallway.

In the wake of the September 2012 allegations, the school district placed Britain on administrative leave. His employment status remained on leave until recently as a result of a bargain Britain struck with prosecutors. The plea deal stipulated that Britain must plead guilty to the misdemeanor battery count in exchange for having two counts of annoying a child, also a misdemeanor, dismissed.

The counts of annoying a child were likely the more serious allegations, and Britain's attorney states that a lack of evidence led to the dismissal of these charges. Nonetheless, the various allegations and the plea deal will probably be a continuing headache for Britain and the school district.

The father of the 12 year-old accuser is outraged that Britain is again being allowed to teach in the classroom even though it’s in a different school. However, the district insists that Britain has been cleared of charges and his teaching credentials have been reinstated, making him fully qualified for employment.

Sadly, everyone lost in this one. There will likely be a lawsuit filed. Check back for updates.

Eighth grade student Skylar Davis was recently suspended for wearing a purse to his classes at Anderson County Senior-Junior School. Davis had been wearing the Vera Bradley bag everyday since the beginning of the school year in August. Yet, in November, the Kansas student was asked to remove the purse.

Davis refused, and was sent to the office. There, Assistant Principal Don Hillard repeated the request to remove the bag. Davis continued to refuse, citing that other students are permitted to carry purses and bags to class. He felt that the request that he remove the purse was discriminatory.

Hillard suspended Davis. In disbelief, Davis' mother, Leslie Willis, called the school to verify the reason for her son's suspension. When she learned that the suspension sprang solely from Davis' refusal to remove the bag, Willis decided to review the student handbook. She could find no references to purses or bags in the document. Accordingly, Willis also felt that the request for Davis to leave the purse in his locker was discriminatory in nature.

While Willis could find no entry in the student handbook that prohibits carrying bags and purses into classrooms, the Facebook page for School District 365, of which Anderson County Senior-Junior School is a part, states that school policy prevents students from carrying bags or purses into the room for certain core classes. Bags are supposed to be stowed in the student's locker when they are in class. If the student brings a bag to class, they may be asked to take it to their locker. The district says that this rule has been in place for several years.

It appears that Davis disagrees, noting that many female students carry purses into classrooms. The situation suggests that perhaps the rule against bags in the classroom has not been uniformly enforced in the past. Perhaps the suspension and subsequent media attention will cause the school to revisit its bag policy, applying it equally to all students or abolishing the prohibition entirely. For now, Davis is back in class, and it remains unclear how the situation will ultimately be resolved.

An occurrence of cyber bullying at a Nevada high school is receiving widespread media attention. Early in October, a photograph began surfacing on social media. Reportedly, it was taken in one of the upstairs hallways of Durango High School, which is part of the Clark County School District.

What makes the photograph particularly notorious is its subject matter, a female student who has removed her clothing and is standing with the removed items covering her face. Rumors ran rampant in the days following the first postings of the photograph online. Some said the girl was a special education student. Others claimed that she had been coerced into removing her clothing while different witnesses said she had done so willingly.

Little is known about the girl because of Nevada privacy laws. This means that the girl's name and whether or not she is in fact a special education student remain unknown. It seems a welcome piece of anonymity in a case that's puzzling to other high school students who don't understand how the whole situation came about.

What is clear in this situation is the school district's rules against cyber bullying. Clark County School District, and Durango High in particular, have a reputation for taking a harsh view on instances of cyber bullying.

Thus far, the school and district have been relatively silent on the situation. They released a statement shortly after news of the photograph broke, saying that the "matter has our full attention." Afterward, it was reported that a student, Gary Hoffman, was expelled after the incident. Hoffman appears in the photograph, but is not seen taking pictures.

Nonetheless, Hoffman's family soon received a letter saying he had been expelled. The family appealed, noting that the student is merely in the photograph rather than being involved in inducing the girl to remove her clothing or sharing the photo on social media.

The Hoffman family prevailed in the appeal, but Gary won't be taking the district's offer to allow him to re-enroll in Durango. He'll attend a different school while Durango officials seek to punish the perpetrators in the incident.

A non-profit organization and a group of Kansas parents are suing over new public school science standards. Citizens for Objective Public Education, an anti-evolution advocacy organization, and Christian parents whose children attend public schools in Kansas filed a lawsuit to prevent the adoption of the new science standards. Plaintiffs state that if the new science programs are implemented, they will promote atheism and violate First Amendment rights.

The new scientific teaching standards are the result of an effort between more than 20 states, including Kansas, and the National Research Council. In the program, students would be introduced to concepts like evolution as early as kindergarten. Additionally, emphasis would be placed on projects and experiments as opposed to readings and lectures. The effort is aimed at getting kids interested in science.

However, the Citizens for Objective Public Education and their attorney, John Calvert, feel that there is another agenda operating below the surface. Calvert seems to feel that the agenda is an insidious one, having been quoted as saying that, "By the time you get into the third grade, you learn all the essential elements of Darwinian evolution … By the time you're in middle school, you're a Darwinist." In his complaint, Calvert asserts that the science program pushes a "non-theistic religious worldview" on impressionable students without allowing room for alternative theories. According to Calvert, this violates First Amendment rights of both parents and students.

Joshua Rosenau, a representative of the National Center for Science Education, calls the lawsuit "silly," going on to note that the plaintiffs are "trying to say anything that's not promoting their religion is promoting some other religion."

This is not the first time that scientific standards in Kansas public schools have come under fire. In fact, the state has adopted no fewer than six different sets of science standards in a 15 year period. The content of the standards changes as the relative liberalism or conservatism of local politicians changes. Although the current situation remains unresolved, it seems clear that this is just another step in the process toward finding scientific curriculum that adequately addresses student needs.

Southern California's Glendale Unified School District is taking controversial steps to combat cyber bullying. Specifically, the district has hired a company called Geo Listening to monitor its students' social media postings.

This monitoring may occur on school computers and on those in the student's home. Although some parents and students feel that this monitoring is invasive and has overtones of a big brother mentality, others are hailing it as a positive step toward fighting cyber bullying and identifying at risk students who don't know where to turn to seek help for emotional and psychological issues.

The program began in 2012 in the aftermath of a school district tragedy. A student had committed suicide by jumping from the roof of one of Glendale's high schools. Administrators saw a need to track early warning signs that students were headed for trouble. This, coupled with the global emphasis on stopping cyber bullying, led the district to contract with Geo Listening to monitor the social network postings of the students in a handful of its schools.

That pilot program is now being extended to all middle and high schools in the district. Although Dr. Richard Sheehan, Glendale District Superintendent, notes that the program is directly related to "student safety," critics remain unsure. Sheehan asserts that Geo Listening will be looking for postings that indicate that "a student is considering harming themselves [or] harming someone else."

On the surface, this appears to be a well intentioned program. The policy grants Geo Listening the opportunity to review postings made by Glendale students to popular social media websites like Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. However, it's important to make the distinction that Geo Listening will only have access to public accounts that are essentially viewable by any users. Students can opt out of participating in the monitoring by privatizing the settings of their social media accounts, which, considering the prevalence of online risks, is probably a good idea anyway. While this monitoring may prove to be an important tool, it should be just one approach among many to combat cyber bullying and provide assistance to at risk youth.

A 2010 science experiment that went awry and caused a student injury is the basis for an Illinois lawsuit. Former student Zachary Bennett, who has graduated in the aftermath of the incident, filed the lawsuit alleging "willful and wanton conduct" on the part of private Marmion Academy.

Marmion, a college prep school in Aurora, was the scene of the accident. The setting was a chemistry class where Bennett was participating in an experiment. His hand was coated with a solution of polyacrylate to act as a flame barrier between his skin and a layer of methane gas filled soap bubbles.

The initial experiment was a success, but the class and Bennett decided to take it a step farther. Bennett wore only a bathing suit, ski goggles and a swim cap. A towel was placed on the floor, with Bennett lying on his back. This stage of the experiment was also successful, prompting a further experiment with Bennett standing up.

Bennett panicked when the flames came near his face. He stepped off of the towel, slipped on some soap that that had been spilled and fell on his face. His teeth were injured in the fall, but Bennett was not burned.

Bennett and his family filed a lawsuit over the injuries, claiming that the damage to his face and teeth were the result of the teacher failing to ensure the safety of the classroom. However, Marmion Academy attorneys say that there was no "willful and wanton conduct" connected to the incident and that the lawsuit mainly relies on an allegation of simple negligence, which is protected by Illinois school codes. The defendants go on to state that the plaintiff must prove "a conscious decision to disregard the safety of others," something they argue has not yet been done.

Regardless, it seems clear that this case is still far from resolution, highlighting a need for caution in the classroom when it comes to potentially risky chemistry experiments.

Two Idaho school districts were able to fend off a lawsuit brought by the parents of a student with Asperger's in a recent court decision. Jury members required six and a half hours to decide that the Boise and Meridian school districts had provided adequate accommodations for student Matthew Abramowski's education.

Abramowski moved to the Boise area with his parents in 2004. When he had previously been enrolled in a California school, Abramowski had been receiving special education services. Initially, he continued in this program in Idaho. However, the school district decided that the student should be placed in the mainstream educational program when he was in the eighth grade. Idaho school officials didn't feel that Abramowski's disabilities were severe enough to require him to continue with special education classes. Abramowski's mother requested that he be independently evaluated, with the result being that Matthew was granted extra time to complete assignments and provided with other accommodations.

However, the Abramowski complaint alleges that the school districts did not do everything possible to accommodate Matthew's special needs. The complaint stated that the district did not adequately prepare Matthew for life beyond school, and that a great deal of time and money will be required to retrain him for organizational and planning skills. Moreover, the lawsuit also cited instances of bullying by various classmates that teachers did little to address.

Ultimately, the jury found the complaint unpersuasive. U.S. District Judge Candy Dale dismissed the lawsuit in the wake of the jury's decision. Nick Crawford, who was part of the school districts' defense team, noted that the jury must have recognized that school staff and administration "did, in fact, care" and that reasonable accommodations had been made.

Charlene Quade, who was acting for the plaintiffs, disagrees. She believes that the federal law known as Section 504, which was relied upon in the complaint, is a complex one, implying that perhaps the jury did not fully grasp the issues at hand. The Abramowski family remains hopeful that the case will assist other schools to more effectively deal with students who have Asperger's in the future.

An effort to bring stress relief to students attending one of the nine schools of the Encinitas Union School District in California has resulted in a lawsuit. A gift to the school district from a non-profit organization called the Jois Foundation enabled the district to offer yoga classes in all of its schools.

The Jois Foundation's focus is promoting an interest in Asthanga yoga, and they felt that this program would serve as a pilot for similar efforts. Although the yoga practice in the schools had been virtually stripped of all religious overtones, some parents took exception to the addition.

Participation in the yoga program was voluntary with students learning the crisscross applesauce pose instead of the lotus position. Teachers believed that by not using the Sanskrit language in the classes and by not emphasizing the cultural and religious underpinnings of yoga, they were abiding by the standard division of church and state. After just a few months, teachers noticed that students were calmer in the classroom, and that they were utilizing beneficial breathing techniques to prepare for stressful situations like major tests.

Nonetheless, parents Stephen and Jennifer Sedlock objected to the yoga program. In their complaint, they alleged that the practice of yoga is inherently religious and that their children, who had opted out of the program, had been bullied as a result of their non-participation. The Sedlocks sought to have the program suspended rather than seeking a monetary award in the case.

School Superintendent Timothy B. Baird stressed that the school was "not teaching religion" and that the yoga classes were part of a "mainstream physical fitness program." Superior Court Judge John S. Meyer agreed with this assessment, saying that the way the district was teaching yoga did not promote any religion. Judge Meyer went even farther in his decision, stating that this was an instance of "trial by Wikipedia" wherein the plaintiffs were relying on information from dubious sources.

The Sedlocks are likely to appeal the decision, but for the time being, interested students still have an opportunity to study yoga in the Encinitas Union School District.

Today's world of instant communication has its advantages and drawbacks. It's easier than ever to communicate with others. It's so easy that many people are becoming too casual in their business communication.

Consider the case of Chrisanne Lanier, a business analyst at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. Like the other workers in her department, Lanier worked a daily shift and was also expected to be on-call at all hours once every 12 weeks. However, during one of her on-call weeks, Lanier's elderly father was hospitalized, prompting her to send her supervisor a text message. The text outlined the situation and stated that Lanier could not be on-call that night. Lanier's supervisor agreed to find another employee to cover the shift and that Lanier could make up the missed shift later.

When it was time for Lanier's makeup shift, her supervisor could not reach her. Later, the supervisor confronted Lanier about her apparent absence. Lanier simply returned her laptop and pager, leaving without an explanation. The supervisor asked for Lanier's resignation, but Lanier quickly filed a lawsuit alleging that her supervisor should have known that her request for leave was protected under FMLA.

In a summary judgment decision, a federal appeals court found in favor of Lanier's former employer. Essentially, the court found that the employer would have had to be "clairvoyant" to have interpreted Lanier's text as a request for FMLA protection. Moreover, the court's understanding that Lanier had requested and received FMLA leave in the past demonstrated that she knew how to use the system and should have been able to effectively do so in this instance had she intended to do so.

Although the court's finding (available HERE)notes that the employee does not have to use the words "FMLA leave" in order to be eligible or considered for eligibility, it does stress the importance of providing adequate, reasonable notice. A text message may be a quick and easy form of communication, but it is also an informal and flawed one. With business communications, it is sometimes best to rely on an old fashioned phone call or meeting.

Workplace complaints are nothing new. However, the method of venting these complaints has been revolutionized by the Internet. Where an employee might once have vented off some work related steam at the local bar with a few coworkers, today they are taking to social media to make their dissatisfaction known.

This transformation from a momentary utterance to a textual conversation that can be printed, forwarded and reviewed in detail had a detrimental effect on an employee at Skinsmart Dermatology. A group of current and former Skinsmart employees was utilizing Facebook to make plans for an upcoming social event. For awhile, the group was focused on the task, but when a former employee cracked a joke about the employer, a current employee launched into a tirade that featured the words, “FIRE ME … Make my day …”

The current employee’s statements evoked little response from other current employees at the time. Nonetheless, one of those workers brought the comments to the attention of a Skinsmart supervisor who concluded that the statements indicated a clear lack of interest in continued employment on the employee’s part. The employee was immediately fired, but soon decided to challenge the decision by filing a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board.

The fired employee felt that her Facebook statements should have been protected under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) because they constituted a concerted activity regarding shared employee concerns. The board put the claim to the test, looking at whether or not the employee’s statements were made on her own behalf or in the interests of other employees as well. Moreover, the board also studied if the statements were an attempt to begin an effort to bring group concerns to the employer.

In this instance, the board found in favor of the employer, pointing out that the NLRA does not protect “mere griping” nor does it protect an “individual gripe rather than any shared concerns about working conditions.” Whether or not the employee will seek an alternative tactic to redress the firing remains unknown. For now, the employer’s decision stands as a right and legal workplace dismissal.

The welfare of a second grade student is at the heart of a retaliation lawsuit that was recently revived by a federal appeals court in Tennessee. In the initial complaint, the parents of a Shelby County, Tennessee school district student allege that their daughter’s school principal retaliated against them in response to their accommodation requests made in connection with the girl’s medical condition.

The student, who is identified in the lawsuit only as A.C., suffers from Type I diabetes. In her three years at the Bon Lin Elementary School, A.C.’s parents made numerous requests for accommodation of their daughter’s condition. They asked that the student’s blood sugar be tested in the classroom by the school nurse rather than having their daughter go to the nurse’s office where she would regularly encounter sick children. This request was not granted, but others were. Among them were adding a full time nurse to the school staff and training teachers how to respond to a diabetic emergency.

Despite most of their accommodations being granted by the school, A.C.’s parents continued to agitate for further changes. The principal and other staff members became increasingly bewildered regarding how to respond to the numerous requests. When A.C.’s teacher observed her eating candy and cookies at school, alarm bells sounded for administrators. They came to the conclusion that A.C.’s parents were not appropriately attending to their daughter's medical needs. This belief led to the principal contacting the Tennessee child services agency. The agency investigated the maltreatment claims, but ultimately declared them unfounded.

Nonetheless, the action prompted A.C.’s parents to initiate a lawsuit against the school district which asserted retaliation on the part of the principal in response to their accommodation requests. A summary judgment found in favor of the school district, but a three judge panel at the federal appeals court (view the opinion HERE) recently overturned that decision. The panel found that a jury could reasonably construe the report to the child services agency as a retaliatory act. Accordingly, this newly reopened case is likely to be tried in a court of law before a jury.

Bullying has become a hot media topic, but it’s a subject that’s gone beyond the schoolyard bully demanding lunch money. Today, cyberbullying is being put in the spotlight, and the prevalence of this phenomenon is leading to legislation.

In Nevada, public outcry over videotaped bullying that gets posted to the Internet has caused politicians to pass a new law. Essentially, the legislation prevents the transmission and distribution of violent images involving a child. Minors who knowingly and willfully distribute images of a violent offense against another minor may find themselves facing a juvenile court after the first offense. The court may impose supervision for the minor, though it is not empowered to detain them.

A second offense carries stiffer penalties. A juvenile detention center would be the minor offender’s next stop. Under the law, the detention would be similar to that imposed upon an adult who had committed a misdemeanor.

Parents of children who have been the victims of cyberbullying feel that the new law comes not a moment too soon. Cherie Anderson, a mother whose 17 year-old daughter was herself the victim of a bullying attack, expressed her hope in the days before passage of the bill that it would pass in its entirety without major amendments.

In response to the bullying, Anderson has already begun homeschooling her daughter and has also enacted two house rules that prohibit cell phones and the use of social media. Anderson also said that she finds it “appalling that parents give” children the tools necessary to perpetrate a cyberbullying attack.

Though Nevada’s new law (HERE) is certainly among the first such legislation in the country, it is unlikely to be the last. It seems reasonable to assume that other states and municipalities will soon be considering passage of similar laws.

Lawsuits alleging racial discrimination in the workplace are not particularly unusual, but one such suit in Columbus, Ohio is drawing attention because of its emphasis on reverse discrimination. In the lawsuit (available HERE), two Caucasian Columbus City Schools employees are suing the school board in addition to several individual employees who are nearly all African American. Among the details in the complaint are allegations of a hostile work environment, emotional distress and the loss of opportunities for promotion.

The two plaintiffs are Elizabeth Gasior and Juli Knecht. Each has been employed by the school district for several years, mainly within the Gifted and Talented Department. Gasior alleges that after more than 20 years of employment and overall positive employee reviews, things began to change under the directorship of Toia Robinson. After Robinson was made supervisor of the Gifted and Talented Department in the 2008-2009 school year, Gasior says that alterations within the department began to make it difficult for her to perform her responsibilities effectively. Further, she says Robinson showed a tendency to make false performance statements and began to remove her from certain department activities.

As for Knecht, the long time district employee alleges that after interviewing for a regional coordinator position and ranking well before the hiring panel, her name was simply removed from contention in favor of an African American woman who did not possess her professional qualifications. Later, Robinson, in collusion with other officials, is alleged to have falsified interview board documentation to make it look as though the African American candidate had been the preferred interviewee all along.

Both women believe that their careers as educators have been adversely affected through a pervasive pattern of reverse discrimination to which other district employees have also alluded in conversations. Repeated complaints made by both women to the board of education went unresolved for months before the decision was made to file a civil complaint. A resolution to the situation will likely not be reached for some time, which is likely to prompt the concern of many parents whose children are enrolled as students in the Gifted and Talented Department.

The question of whether or not a teacher’s work email address should be a matter of public record is stirring debate in Nevada. Specifically, the Nevada Policy Research Institute is suing the Clark County School District after officials refused to release the email addresses of its 18,000 teachers. Also named in the suit are the Nevada Public Education Foundation and the county’s Public Education Foundation. Earlier correspondence from the foundations to the institute indicated that the foundations owned the licenses for the requested records, making it within their purview to make the decision about releasing the information.

The trouble began when the institute wanted to notify teachers about the limited opportunity to cancel their membership in the Clark County Education Association. Members of the association pay almost $800 in dues each year, and they are only able to drop their membership between July 1 and 15. The association is a union, and the conservative policy institute felt that more union members should be aware of their options.

District officials didn’t agree. Melinda Malone, a spokesperson for the district, contends that making email addresses a part of the public record would create abuse of a system that’s meant to be used only for official business. If email addresses were publicly available, Malone fears that it would cause “countless businesses and organizations to continuously solicit district teachers through their work email.”

Over district objections, the institute was able to obtain a few thousand of the pertinent addresses and sent out the union notifications to those teachers. Response to the effort was mixed, with some teachers being appreciative and others asking not to be contacted. An institute representative noted that the reaction of some teachers was so strong that they “cussed” at institute employees.

This is a situation that isn’t likely to be resolved any time soon. Nevada already provides the institute with the name, salary and title of all government employees, and the institute feels that no distinction should be made for work email address. For now, it remains a question for the court to decide.

A Lynchburg, Virginia teacher is in hot water after subjecting her third grade students to a lie detector test. The incident happened on Valentine’s Day. Students were celebrating the holiday, and candy had been brought into the classroom. However, things went sour when some candy went missing.

The teacher, who has not been named to media sources, apparently pulled out her smartphone and looked for a lie detecting app. Then, each student was asked to participate by placing their thumbs on the phone’s screen while they were asked whether or not they had taken the missing candy. Allegedly, one student did not pass the test, although it has not been revealed whether or not that student was the actual candy culprit.

A parent whose child attends the third grade class at Dearington Elementary School spoke with the teacher after the incident. The teacher insisted that the lie detector test was administered in the spirit of fun and that some of the students had actually suggested the use of the app when the missing candy was discovered.

The fun quickly evaporated, with many kids being afraid to tell their parents about the incident and some even admitting to being nervous about the accuracy of the test itself.

“I was scared because what if it came back and said I did it when I really didn’t,” third grader Zimeyia Alexander is quoted as saying by media outlets.

Parents and guardians are more angry than scared. One parent noted that a lie detector is something “that belongs at a jail,” while another argued that the teacher should have notified parents before administering the test.

Disciplinary action against the teacher has not yet been decided upon, but some parents, including the PTO president, insist that the teacher should be terminated.

A brief review of several lie detector apps suggest that they are intended only for entertainment and do not actually perform the function of detecting lies. It seems advisable to take such caveats at face value and to not place too much faith in a smartphone as a lie detecting gadget.

When fourth grade teacher Jane Youn handed out a new set of math problems to her students in Manhattan’s Public School 59, the otherwise routine event sparked outrage among parents.

That’s because the assignment consisted of a number of math word problems, some of which contained references to slavery. Youn had asked her students to create word problems that combined math with their social studies lessons. Youn later collected the problems and presented them to students for homework.

All might have been well except for two questions. The first asserted that a ship had been loaded with 3,799 slaves and continued by stating that, “One day, the slaves took over the ship. 1,897 are dead. How many slaves are alive?” The other problematic question concerned a slave who was whipped multiple times everyday. Students were asked to determine how many times the slave was whipped in a one month period.

The assignment raised a few eyebrows when Youn’s students took it home that night. Almost immediately, parents were raising concerns about the appropriateness of the questions. When school officials were alerted to the matter, they expressed that they were appalled. At this time, disciplinary action against Youn is still being considered. Another teacher at the school, Jacqueline Vitucci, had copied the assignment but ultimately decided not to use it. Vitucci may also be facing disciplinary action by the administration.

The public school, which shows a demographic that is 60% white and only 5% black, is still reeling from the aftereffects of the assignment. Parents call the use of the slavery questions “unnerving” and “unsettling.” Another parent referred to the questions as “sending the wrong message.” A student teacher at Public School 59 refused to hand out the assignment in a later class, declaring that it contained issues with “desensitized” violence.

Though the fact remains that it was students who initially composed the questions, the ultimate use of those word problems was left up to the teacher’s discretion. Clearly, where racially charged subjects are concerned, it’s better to exercise caution in an educational atmosphere.

Beginning in 2016, Chicago students may be receiving sex education classes as early as kindergarten. Currently, students begin sex education in the fifth grade, a common practice throughout the U.S. However, experts point out that America has one of the highest teen birth rates in the world. Additionally, Cook County has an unusually high rate of sexually transmitted diseases, and several studies have indicated that children as young as 13 and 14 years of age are having sex, especially in large urban areas.

The new sex ed program emphasizes age appropriate subject matter. Prior to the fifth grade, students would be introduced to subjects like basic anatomy, inappropriate touching and about various species that reproduce. As students progress through successive school years, the sex ed focus will continue to be on feelings and the family, with puberty being added in the fourth grade.

Contraception and human reproduction would not be addressed until the fifth grade. New components of the sex ed program would include information about sexual identity, homosexuality and bullying.

These changes are aimed at giving children the information they need to make healthy, responsible life choices. However, many parents are made uncomfortable at the thought of their young children receiving sex education at as early as five or six years of age. Some say that children are not yet ready to be presented with such information.

Parents who would rather not have their children participate in the program can choose to opt out. To these parents, it simply makes sense to discuss sexuality and human reproduction in the home. Nonetheless, the information presented in the classroom can be especially helpful, and public school officials suggest that any education provided at home can be augmented by instruction at school.

The changes to Chicago’s sex education program are in line with President Obama’s HIV/AIDS agenda, and were designed by the Chicago Public School's Office of Student Health and Wellness. A final decision has not yet been reached on the issue, but a presentation to the Chicago Board of Education may result in imminent implementation of the strategy.

Should food allergies be considered a disability? Perhaps they should, at least according to a settlement recently reached between a college in Massachusetts and the Justice Department. The college in question, Lesley University, is now required to make accommodations for students who suffer from severe food allergies. The specific allergy in question is a wheat allergy called celiac disease, but this settlement may make a precedent for other food allergies.

Supporters of the settlement say that it will grant important rights to college students who, in many cases, are required to participate in an on campus meal plan. Many institutions require students to purchase a cafeteria meal plan while living in on campus housing. For most students, this is an economical and convenient choice. However, those students who suffer from various food allergies may find that their food choices in the cafeteria are severely limited.

The result is sometimes weight loss and nutritional imbalance. Some students with food allergies and no alternatives are forced to pay for meal plans they never use while finding other ways to prepare appropriate food for themselves. On occasion, students have even taken the extreme step of moving off campus in order to enjoy more freedom to prepare their own food.

Those in opposition to the settlement suggest that federal government involvement in the food served by college cafeterias is absurd. They feel that colleges should be encouraged to work with students on a case by case basis, allowing some students to opt out of mandatory meal plans and providing appropriate dietary choices for others.

The settlement between the federal government and Lesley University provides only that the school must make reasonable modifications for students who consider themselves disabled as a result of their food allergy. However, many people who have food allergies are not yet accustomed to the idea that their disorder actually is a disability.

The finding that food allergies may qualify as disabilities is a surprising one that may provide future government protection not just for on campus college students, but also for students in elementary, middle and high schools.

A proposal to amend Title 49 of the Tennessee Code with regard to the discussion and instruction of gender orientation in the classroom is causing controversy, inciting satire and provoking theatrics. Senate Bill 234, sponsored by Tennessee Senator Stacey Campfield from Knoxville, aims to amend the Classroom Protection Act by adding a section that would essentially prohibit the introduction of any educational materials "inconsistent with natural human reproduction" in classrooms from preschool and kindergarten through the eighth grade.

Senate Bill 234, which has been nicknamed "Don't Say Gay" since it started making the rounds in the Tennessee legislature six years ago, is the latest attempt from Senator Campfield to push an agenda that would not only make it illegal to mention same-gender preference in the classroom before the ninth grade but would also require teachers to inform parents about non-heterosexual tendencies among students.

Senator Campfield's repeated attempts over the years at amending Title 49 of the Tennessee Code have not made it very far in the legislative process, but they have managed to attract controversy and media attention. Senator Campfield's remarks about homosexuality being a dangerous act comparable to the intravenous administration of heroin have made headlines, as well as his unwillingness to believe that sex education has a place in the classroom.

As in his previous bills, this one retains its proposed ban on classroom discussions related to all LGBT issues. There is also a provision which could be interpreted as requiring school officials to inform parents if they believe a child is gay.

The problem is that the wording leaves teachers with a lot of subjective interpretation before determining if a given situation requires notifying parents of their child’s sexuality. That type of potential (mis)interpretation will likely lead to numerous lawsuits, wasting countless dollars better utilized for education.

The Davis School District in Davis County, Utah has reversed its decision to place a book depicting lesbian protagonists behind the librarian’s desk in several elementary schools. The book, In Our Mothers’ House by noted children’s author Patricia Polacco, was initially removed from Davis’ elementary school library shelves after a parent protest was launched by a mother whose kindergartener brought the book home.

The mother’s petition to have the book removed from libraries garnered signatures from 25 other parents in the district. Officials responded by putting the book behind the librarian’s desk and requiring written parent permission for students to check out the book.

In response, the ACLU LGBT Project and the ACLU of Utah filed a lawsuit claiming that the move violated First Amendment rights. While parents in favor of the book’s removal stated that they did not want their children to have access to a book that “normalizes a lifestyle that we don’t agree with,” Tina Weber, on whose behalf the lawsuit was filed, cited the individual responsibility of parents to instill values in their children.

Weber, herself a mother of two children who attend an elementary school in the Davis district, believes parents have the right to limit what their children read, but that this right does not extend to restricting access to certain library materials. Weber states that the actions of the district have the effect of “imposing … personal views on the rest of the school community.”

Though litigation is still pending in the courts, the Davis School District has returned the book to the shelves of the library in the four elementary schools that own a copy. Still to be decided in the lawsuit is a question of interpretation of Utah’s sex education law which bans advocating a gay or lesbian lifestyle and whether or not this law extends to library materials. As the lawsuit cites, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled decades ago that school officials did not have the right to restrict library materials simply because “they or their constituents disagree with the ideas those books contain.”

On January 11, 2013 we published a blog post about the status of a lawsuit regarding the use of Smart (RFID) Badges in a Texas school district. While the appeal to a federal judge’s ruling continues, there has been a new development.

Texas state representatives Lois Kolkhorst and Cindy Burkett have co-authored and introduced two bills, HB 101 and HB 102 which would prohibit the use of radio frequency identification technology (RFID) in public schools. They would also allow parents to opt out and prevent students from being punished for not participating in RFID programs.
Kolkhorst has introduced similar bills in previous legislative sessions which have failed to pass.

In addition to Burkett, she is also joined by state Senator Craig Estes. In response to the lawsuit against Northside Independent School District (NISD), Estes filed SB173 which also would prohibit the use of RFID technology in Texas schools.

School districts see this technology as having two primary benefits. First, it would aid school officials in locating every student in school during an emergency situation. It would also track attendance which has proven to increase school funding.

Two Houston area school districts have used the RFID technology with no major repercussions. They have also reported increased funding of hundreds of thousands of dollars by having more accurate attendance records.

On the other hand, Senator Estes stated “This RFID technology is very impressive when it comes to tracking cattle or products in a retail supply chain, but children aren't products or cattle.”

Ultimately, whether or not any of these bills pass in Texas, this may be a battle to be settled by the US Supreme Court. Meanwhile, school districts will each have to weigh the benefits of student security and funding against the potential costs including litigation.

Additionally, it is conceivable that these RFID badges could also be used to track when and where students get on and off school busses. They could even be used to prevent a student from getting on the wrong bus or getting off at the wrong stop. These uses could eliminate another set of school district problems related to student safety and security.

Last year when Andrea Hernandez was issued a new “smart” Student ID embedded with an RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) chip by John Jay High School officials, she refused to wear it. The San Antonio high school student claimed it was an invasion of privacy which also infringed on her religious beliefs.

In addition to the RFID chip, the ID included her name, photo and a bar code. It is designed to pinpoint the location of each student on campus, and track when they arrive and when they leave.

On behalf of Andrea Hernandez, the Rutherford Institute sent a letter to The Northside Independent School District (Texas) warning them not to force Andrea or any other student(s) to wear the RFID badges. Rutherford then filed for a preliminary injunction asking the court to prevent forcing students to wear the badges. It was denied.

The school district offered an accommodation, a badge for Andrea with the RFID chip and battery removed. The district stated that if Andrea did not wear the badge with no ID chip, she would have to leave her magnet school and return to her previous, non-magnet high school.

In November, Rutherford had the legal case removed (from the Texas state court system) to Federal Court.

On January 8, 2013, Federal District Judge Orlando Garcia ruled that since school officials offered a badge without the RFID-chip, they are acting within their rights to force students to wear the ID badge or face expulsion. In his decision Judge Garcia stated “The accommodation offered by the district is not only reasonable it removes plaintiff’s religious objection from legal scrutiny all together.”

One of the main purposes for the smart student badge system is student safety. In light of recent events in Connecticut, one would think that this new system would be welcomed.

But, Andrea Hernandez and her family are not giving up. Yesterday, the Rutherford Institute filed an appeal to District Judge Orlando Garcia’s ruling.

The appeal asks that Andrea be allowed to continue to attend her science and engineering magnet school until the appeal is decided. The school district has given Andrea until January 18 to either wear the special badge with the RFID chip removed, or leave school.

A federal lawsuit has been filed against the Hillsborough School District in Tampa, Florida for the death of a seven-year old girl with special needs. Although Isabella Herrera was confined to a wheelchair because of her muscular dystrophy, the seven-year old wanted to feel like the rest of her classmates; Isabella insisted that her mother let her ride the school bus.

Even though it is clearly stated on Isabella's Individual Education Plan (IEP), video footage from the school bus shows that neither the aide, Joanna Hamilton, nor the bus driver, Tonia Pizarro, properly tilted Isabella's wheelchair. For seventeen minutes, Isabella's unstable head bobbed backwards and forwards, and she started choking.

On January 25, 2012, Lisa Herrera, Isabella's mother, received the call. Instead of calling 911, the aide on the school bus called the girl's mother.

Isabella's parents are outraged about how the adults on the bus reacted once they realized that something was wrong with Isabella. Even though Isabella had turned blue, video footage shows how neither the bus driver nor the aide ever called 911. The adults never tried to perform CPR on Isabella either. Ironically, the bus stopped in front of a pediatric clinic and neither Pizarro nor Hamilton tried to get help for Isabella. Isabella died the next day at the hospital.

Isabella's parents are suing on the grounds of negligence. Her parents hope that their lawsuit will prevent other family's from losing their children. They also feel that Isabella's civil rights as a disabled person were violated when the school district failed to effectively meet Isabella's transportation needs that are protected under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

A spokesperson for the Hillsborough School District Stephen Hegarty, commented that their bus drivers do receive basic training in things like CPR. However, bus drivers and aides do not have to receive training for assisting children with special needs, even though this training is available. Hegarty claims that the school district is currently reevaluating its training policies.

Slow readers in a fourth grade Idaho classroom were given an unusual menu of options as a result of not meeting their academic goals: miss recess or have their faces painted with magic markers by their classmates. Six students at Declo Elementary School in an Accelerated Reading program agreed to have their faces scribbled by peers as punishment for their poor reading performance.

According to various news reports, the Magic Valley students got creative with the magic markers. They drew mustaches, eyeglass frames and names in green, purple and red colors. A local news outlet reported that the mother of a 10-year old student was astonished to see her son's entire face and eyelids covered in colorful, yet crude, scrawls. The face painting took place during morning period, which means that the students were branded the entire day of classes in shame.

The incident recalls the badge of shame worn by Hester Prynne in Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, down to the Puritan-like consensus and supervision by the teacher in charge. The educator, who is reported to have six years of teaching experience, has not answered to information requests by news reporters. The Cassia County School District Superintendent has confirmed the incident and explained that the face scribbling was supposed to be an incentive rather than a shaming.

Initial investigations by school officials revealed that a recent Parents-Teacher Organization event featured the painting of the Principal's face and hair, but the Superintendent is concerned that such actions do not translate well when applied to children. Some parents are comparing the incident with bullying, while the parents of the students who met their reading goals do not think it was such a big deal. The problem, according to one grandparent, is that some of the marked children already deal with learning difficulties and self-esteem issues.

The judgment of the teacher is being questioned as the students' reading adequacy is a significant part of her responsibility as an educator. After being absent for a couple of days, she is back in the classroom while the investigation continues.

An Arizona school district is facing a lawsuit filed by parents who say their 7-year-old son was routinely kept locked in a five by six foot windowless padded room while other students were educated. Eric and Leslie Noyes say that school staff at Desert Sage Elementary School disobeyed their child’s doctor’s orders by feeding him foods that caused him to have allergic reactions, including behavioral difficulties. The Noyeses claim that school staff routinely induced their son’s reactions to the forbidden substances, then punished him severely for the reactions.

The lawsuit (available HERE) accuses school staff of false imprisonment, committing assault and battery against T. N., gross negligence and intentionally inflicting emotional distress on the child. It asks for compensation for the medical treatment T. N. required as a result of the treatment he received, for the district to pay additional transportation costs required to send the boy to a school in another district and for general damages.

The Noyeses claim that they notified the school of their son’s strictly controlled, medically necessary diet. However, school officials continued to feed the boy restricted foods and forced him into the unventilated, windowless box as many as four times each week over the course of more than four months. Some confinements lasted for nearly the entire school day. Teachers used enough force to cause multiple bruises, including dragging T. N. and dropping him onto his head. One teacher even fell on him. Additionally, staff put pressure on T. N.’s back and forced him to lie with his face in the carpet, where he inhaled chemicals used to clean the carpet, causing severe allergic reactions.

T. N. suffered from respiratory distress and experienced panic attacks while he was in the box, according to the suit. He was not allowed to leave the box to urinate or defecate, and when forced to urinate on himself in the box, he received additional punishment, including being forced to disrobe in front of school staff.

As a result of his treatment at the hands of school officials, the lawsuit claims that T. N. suffers from constant anxiety and fear, accompanied by nightmares and other sleep disturbances, stomach pain and emotional problems. The boy’s parents state that, in violation of district rules, they were only notified that their son was being confined on two of the many occasions it occurred.

A Hartford, CT school district will pay $20,000 to a teacher who was let go in spite of the fact that she was tenured. The Rocky Hill Board of Education agreed to the settlement after Margaret Hale filed a lawsuit at the Superior Court in Hartford. The suit alleged that the district violated state and federal law when it made hiring decisions without holding a hearing on Hale’s tenure claim.

According to Hale, state law required the district to give her one of the two full-time positions that were open at the time her position was eliminated. Instead, Hale was let go and the open positions were given to a non-tenured teacher and an inexperienced new hire. After being passed over for the positions she was legally entitled to, Hale was rehired for her original position when it was reestablished. She asked the court to order that she be reinstated at the school as a full-time teacher and that the date of reinstatement be made June 2011.

Hale was a high school English teacher at Rocky Hill High School in Hartford when her position was eliminated due to budget cuts. She had held the position since 2008 and had received tenure. According to the suit, Hale immediately informed the district that she was interested in one of two open full-time positions and requested a formal hearing. Instead of granting her request, she claimed the district violated Connecticut’s Teacher Tenure Act by delaying, then attempting to rescind Hale’s termination and give her a more limited part-time position. Hale could not accept the district’s offer because it violated the district’s teacher contract and would have voided her health insurance coverage and reduced her pay grade.

In response to the lawsuit, Hale was hired as a full-time teacher, and the district’s school board voted to pay her $20,000 to cover the wages and benefits she lost due to the district’s actions and to pay for legal fees. She will also meet privately with the school board and the district’s superintendent to discuss the district’s plan to ensure compliance with state law in the future.

A school district in Tucson, Ariz., has agreed to a settlement with a former employee who claimed she was fired for trying to get the district to adhere to federal disability laws. Tucson Unified School District will pay Rose Hamway, a former school psychologist for the district, $180,000.

According to Hamway, who was forced to leave the district in 2010 after the school board refused to renew her contract, the problems began after she noted that some students' federal rights were being violated. She sought the help of district officials to educate special education workers and school administrators about federal disability laws.

Instead of protecting students by ensuring the law was enforced, however, Hamway was disciplined for bringing the matter to the district's attention. When violations continued unchecked, Hamway continued to advocate for students by telling special-education staff that if they didn't obey the law she would share her concerns with the Arizona Department of Education. In response, the district reprimanded Hamway, specifically citing her threat to report illegal activity as the reason for their actions. Eventually, Hamway was let go over her insistence that the district comply with federal law.

In addition to the lawsuit, Hamway filed a discrimination complaint the the civil rights office of the U.S. Department of Education. In her complaint, Hamway described what she called a hostile work environment created by the district in response to her attempts to advocate for disabled students. The civil rights office substantiated her claims and continues to monitor the district. It also found that the district failed to address Hamway's complaints on behalf of the school's students.

In addition to paying Hamway, the school district was ordered to take corrective action that includes familiarizing staff and administrators with education on the regulations regarding retaliation and enforcing discrimination grievance procedures.

The Clovis (California) Unified School District is at the center of a groundbreaking lawsuit that demands that it begin providing students with the sexual information the state has determined they need. The lawsuit, which focuses on the district's sex education curriculum, contends that the district does not provide the required skills and information necessary to prepare students for responsible sexual activity as required by law. It also accuses the district of endangering the health of students by withholding state-mandated information on birth control and STD prevention.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is representing the plaintiffs, California law has required public schools to provide comprehensive, medically accurate sex education since 2003. According to an ACLU representative, state law mandates that teenagers be taught how to develop healthy relationships and that they be provided information on the benefits of delaying sex. However, they are also to be taught about contraception and STD prevention.

The lawsuit, which was brought by the American Academy of Pediatrics along with the Gay-Straight Alliance Network and parents, claims that the Clovis Unified School District ignores California law. It alleges the district's program tells students only that even adults should never have sex outside of marriage, in spite of the fact that state law permits consensual sex for adults outside of marriage and does not allow people with some sexual orientations the option of marriage.

Clovis Unified School District has nearly 40,000 students and 40 schools and serves Fresno County. A district spokesperson attributed the concerns behind the lawsuit to a difference between the district's interpretation of the law and the plaintiffs' interpretation of it. However, spokesperson Kelly Avants did not argue with the suit's depiction of the school's sex education program or deny that the district's sex education curriculum is built around a philosophy that says sex is acceptable only within marriage, claiming only that the district's procedures for parent notification as described in the suit are not accurately described.

A New Jersey board of education has agreed to pay $500,000 to seven Hispanic children who were forced to eat lunch on the floor for a week as their schoolmates ate at tables nearby. According to court documents, the fifth-grade students were punished because one of their classmates spilled water and were threatened with more severe punishment if they told anyone what was happening to them.

The Camden Board of Education agreed to the settlement but did not admit any guilt. The board had already settled a case involving the children's teacher, Jose Rivera, who was fired after he went to the board to express his concerns over the incident.

The unusual punishment was meted out by school administrator Theresa Brown in February of 2008 at Liberty Park's Charles Sumner Elementary School. The nature of the punishment, along with school district personnel's behavior afterwards added to the tension between the area's Hispanic and black communities and led to claims of bias against Hispanic students in the local schools.

The suit stated that a student in the class was trying to replace a water cooler jug for a substitute teacher when a spill occurred. In response, Brown administered the punishment to the entire class, including some students who were not at school when the spill occurred.

When parents learned of Brown's actions, they attempted to meet with principal Alex DeFlavis, who refused to see them. Rivera learned of the incident from a secretary when he returned to school. As word of the incident spread, enraged members of the Hispanic community, including some then-current school board members, demanded Brown be fired. In spite of community outrage, Sara Davis, who was the school board president at the time, dismissed the incident, calling it isolated.

The New Jersey Department of Education disagreed with Davis. It ruled that the punishment had occurred and that it was not an isolated incident. The department ordered the school to submit a plan of action for preventing future incidents. However, it did not agree that the action was racist.

Following the announcement of the settlement, Davis changed her stance on the matter, issuing a public apology. Brown, however, is still employed as a vice principal by the district.

The California 2nd District Court of Appeal rejected an earlier decision that permitted some schools to ignore seniority when deciding which teachers to lay off. The court ruled in favor of the teachers' union, which had appealed the decision on multiple grounds, including the claim that it didn't get the chance to present its case against the settlement.

In California, school districts are required to make layoff decisions based upon how much seniority a teacher has. Attorneys representing some of the district's students had argued that children from schools with the poorest student performance, whose teachers often have less seniority, would be hurt the most by losing their teachers. The American Civil Liberties Union, as well as Morrison & Foerster, along with Public Counsel, equated the loss of teachers due to layoffs to unlawfully denying the students the right to an education.

That case, Reed vs. L.A. Unified, resulted in a settlement that permitted the Los Angeles Unified School District to lay off teachers with greater seniority from higher-performing schools in order to protect the teachers of students from poorer-performing schools.

The teachers' union, United Teachers Los Angeles, responded with an appeal, arguing that the judge in Reed vs. L.A. Unified never made a ruling on whether the students’ claim was valid. In addition, the union argued that the earlier decision was damaging to the seniority rights of teachers and that the union was not allowed to adequately present its case prior to the original ruling.

The appellate court agreed with the union, prompting the attorneys representing the students to make an appeal to the California Supreme Court. In the meantime, the terms of the original ruling will stand.

District superintendent John Deasy stated that the district's fight to protect the rights of its students will continue. “In the meantime, nothing has changed,” he said, noting that the teachers of vulnerable students will remain protected until the state supreme court makes its decision.

A Durant, Iowa, school board is facing contempt of court charges after using creative management techniques in dealing with a fired principal it was ordered by a court to reinstate. According to court documents filed by Monica Rouse, the district has restored her in name only and has made every effort to make her work environment miserable. When court-ordered negotiations failed to budge the school board's resolve to continue their behavior, a judge ordered them to attend a contempt hearing near the end of August. If the judge decides the board has failed to truly reinstate Rouse to her position, the board members face jail time.

A district judge ruled that the school board fired Rouse for no valid reason in 2010 and ordered that she be reinstated as principal. The board appealed the decision to the Iowa Court of Appeals, which agreed with the original ruling. Rouse officially returned to her position in April of 2012.

According to Cathy Cartee, who is representing Rouse, the school board has done everything it can to flout the judge's decree. "They aren't even treating her remotely like she's the principal." According to Rouse, she is principal in name only. She has been forbidden to interact with either students or staff and her office was moved away from those of other administrators and placed in an isolated room equipped with security cameras. In fact, another principal has been hired to take over the duties Rouse used to do. She was not even allowed to attend the school's graduation.

Attorney Rand Wonio, who represents the school board, doesn't deny the details of Rouse's working conditions. However, he argues that they are not a violation of the court order. He points out that Rouse is being paid a principal's salary and said that it is legal in Iowa for a high school to have two principals. Wonio expressed disbelief that the school board could actually be sent to jail for their behavior. "I find it hard to believe the school board would be found in contempt, let alone jailed," he said.

A high school vice-principal who claims he was forced into early retirement for refusing to give special treatment to students with powerful parents has reached a settlement with the school board that will allow him to collect $150,000 in compensation.

Pete Corbett sued the Kanawha County Board of Education after he took early retirement in 2008. The suit claimed that he was muscled out of his position at George Washington High School in Charleston, W.Va, when he resisted school superintendent Ron Duerring's orders to treat certain students differently based on the clout their families have in the community. Duerring has denied the allegations.

The school board maintains that Corbett retired after he was suspended indefinitely for insubordination. An independent hearing examiner has ruled that he was insubordinate in a related incident in which Corbett allowed students to have a hot dog cookout on school property during the week of the anniversary of the Columbine shootings. The cookout was in violation of a temporary ban on outdoor activities enacted by the school's principal in response to a shooting spree at Virginia Tech and concerns about the anniversary. Corbett claimed he was unaware of the ban but was suspended for five days.

During his suspension, the former vice principal grilled and sold hot dogs on the public sidewalk in front of the school system's office. The school board responded by suspending Corbett from his position indefinitely on the grounds that his behavior constituted insubordination and demonstrated a lack of respect for the school system. Shortly afterwards, Corbett retired.

The settlement does not include an admission of wrongdoing on the part of the school board or the superintendent. However, the agreement between the parties calls for the school board to pay Corbett $150,000. The school's insurance will pay one third of the settlement, but the district will have to come up with the rest. According to a statement from Duerring, the school board agreed to the settlement so that the board could turn its attention back to educating the district's children.

In a ground-breaking move, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan has brought a lawsuit on behalf of the children of the state of Michigan. The suit asserts that the state, the Michigan Department of Education and the Highland Park school district have deprived children of their right to read. According to the ACLU, the defendants have violated the state's constitution by neglecting to ensure that children are able to read at grade level.

According to the executive director of the Michigan ACLU, Kary Moss, "Literacy is the gateway to all other knowledge." Michigan law states that students who are below reading level are entitled to special help sufficient to get them up to grade level within 12 months, and the ACLU is seeking to force the state and its schools to meet that law.

The class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of a handful of children who represent the rest of the students in the district. According to court documents, the students all fell behind and remained woefully behind year after year but were never given the special help the law requires.

Highland Park is one of the poorest performing schools in America, according to the Michigan ACLU. In fact, one of Governor Rick Snyder's first moves upon taking office was to appoint an emergency manager to attempt to help the district improve its performance.

Michigan's attorney general, Bill Schuette, has not commented on the case. Both the Michigan Department of Education and a spokesperson for the governor stated they are unable to comment on the action, but the spokesperson did issue a statement that “Everything we have done and are doing is to ensure that the kids of Highland Park schools get the education they need and deserve."

According to Moss, the case has implications that reach far beyond Michigan's borders. "If we're not preparing our children, there is no way our economy can recover,” said Moss.

A Texas high school principal and former school board member is facing up to 20 years in prison and a $10,000 fine for ordering her teenaged daughter to plant a hidden surveillance camera in a girl's locker room.

According to prosecutors in Denton County, Texas, Wendee Long is not only the principal of Fort Worth's Wayside Middle School, she is also the parent of two daughters who attend nearby Argyle High School. Long's daughters, who used to play for their school's basketball team, allegedly told their mother that their coach screamed at the players when no one was around.

As many parents would be, Long was concerned about the situation, say prosecutors. However, what she did next was a step too far, they say. Authorities say Long had her daughter smuggle a camera phone into the locker room during an away game at Sanger High School and set it to record everything that was said at halftime.

The resulting video showed no wrongdoing, according to the investigators. However, Long did not erase the video once the coach was cleared. The video ended up in the hands of a viewer who sent it to the school board, who handed it over to the police.

Local authorities investigated the case, and Long was eventually indicted by a grand jury for improper photography as well as felony wiretapping. Her daughter is not being charged.

According to assistant prosecutor Jaime Beck, the setting in which the surveillance took place, coupled with Long's intention to invade the privacy of the coach and all the young players are the key factors that make Long different from a mother who captures mall employees in the background while recording her children eating ice cream.

Prosecutors said the charges were so serious because Long intended to invade someone's privacy. "This occurred in a private girls locker room," said Beck.

Long was released on $25,000 bail and is on paid administrative leave from her job. The district has stated that it will conduct its own investigation. Her attorney, Daniel Peugh, expressed surprise at the charges his client is facing. “She has not violated any law,” he said.

Illinois state attorney general Lisa Madigan has joined the federal lawsuit of an Illinois high school student who is seeking to force the state into compliance with the federal Rehabilitation and Americans with Disabilities acts. The suit, which was also joined by disability advocate group Equip for Equality, was brought against the Illinois High School Association by Mary Kate Callahan of La Grange, Illinois.

Callahan, who is a quadriplegic, is a member of her school’s swim team and competes in local meets just like the other students on the team. Unlike the scores of other students, however, Callahan’s scores don’t count. They are never added into her team’s total. Furthermore, Callahan is not allowed to compete in state meets.

This is not good enough for Callahan, who points out that many other states allow athletes with disabilities to compete fully in sports rather than limiting their participation.

In an interview, Madigan stated that the aim of the suit is to establish qualifying standards that will allow all students to compete at the state level, set records and earn recognition for their athletic achievements.

State Attorney Madigan initially tried to resolve the issue outside the courtroom. In response to her efforts, the Illinois High School Association sued the attorney general’s office in an attempt to force her to give up on the cause.

The association stands by its current practices and claims its separate-but-not-quite-equal approach towards disabled athletes is good enough. In a statement, Marty Hickman, the group’s Executive Director characterized his group as leaders in the fight to raise awareness about the abilities of student athletes with disabilities. Callahan remains unconvinced. According to her, she and other athletes with disabilities just want to be allowed to “...represent our high school like other students are."

Callahan, who began swimming competitively when she was six years old, especially enjoys swimming because it gives her an opportunity to move freely without her wheelchair. In spite of the opposition of the Illinois High School Association to her cause, Callahan holds out hope that she will be allowed to participate fully in her sport during her senior year at Fenwick High School.

The Ramsey School District in New Jersey has settled a lawsuit brought by a former student who was paralyzed by a bully at Eric Smith Middle School. The district will pay $4.2 million to the family of Sawyer Rosenstein, who was paralyzed from the waist down after the last in a series of attacks by a bully.

Rosenstein was 12 years old when he was attacked for the final time by the other student. In spite of reaching out to school staff, including sending an email pleading for help from a school counselor just three months before the attack, the middle-school student was punched in the abdomen in May of 2006. The blow brought Rosenstein to his knees, but he was able to get back up afterwards. Although he experienced back pain that evening, he seemed fine otherwise.

Two days after the attack, Rosenstein screamed and collapsed. He never walked again. The attack had led to a blood clot, which starved his spine of blood and resulted in permanent paralysis.

The suit cited the email as well as attacks on other students as evidence that the school knew or should have known that the bullying was taking place. It further alleged that the school failed to take proper actions necessary to comply with state law.

The Ramsey Board of Education issued a statement in which they deny the allegations that they handled the situation improperly and stated that the decision to settle the lawsuit was made by the school's insurance company.

Rosenstein, who currently studies communication at Syracuse University, said in an interview that he considers it important to speak out about his case so that other children who are victimized by bullies will know that they can go on to lead normal lives. He also wants to warn bullies that their behavior can have devastating consequences for their victims.

For Rosenstein's bully, justice was slow in claiming its due. The district treated the situation lightly and meted out only a brief suspension for the attack that changed Rosenstein's life forever. Recently, however, Rosenstein settled out of court with the attacker's family.

The embattled for-profit organization that runs the new Mavericks High School in Palm Springs is the subject of yet another lawsuit filed on behalf of a former employee. Mavericks in Education Florida LLC is being sued by a former teacher who claims the school administration regularly forges enrollment records and gives students credit for classes that aren’t even offered at the school.

Angenora Mechato is the third employee to file court documents alleging misconduct on the part of the school. The company, which runs a number of charter schools in Florida, has yet to respond to the latest lawsuit, which claims that Mechato was fired for refusing to falsify documents so that the school could get more state funding.

According to Mechato, the school inflates its enrollment numbers to gain funding to which it is not entitled and enrolls students and gives them grades in courses that don’t exist outside the school's paperwork.

Lauren Hollander, one of the company’s managers, said in an interview that the lawsuit is baseless and pointed out that the new lawsuit is identical in some places to the earlier suits, which were filed by the same attorney, Dale Morgado.

The three former employees named as plaintiffs in the cases are not alone in expressing concerns over the company’s practices. Two Florida counties recently rejected Maverick’s bid to open schools in their areas. The Palm Beach County School District also refused to approve the company’s applications to open more schools in the district on the grounds that the company’s existing schools have not achieved their goal of improving student performance.

Every Mavericks school is geared towards students who are considered to be at risk of failing to graduate. Students are offered a hybrid teaching approach that divides their time between traditional classrooms and independent lessons delivered via computer.

A coach at a California High School who alleged in a suit against his former school district that he was fired because of his sexual orientation is now claiming that his was not an isolated case. Mitch Stein claims that he has uncovered evidence that the district has a history of systematic discrimination against homosexual employees.

Stein, the former water polo coach for Charter Oak High School, originally filed suit in the Los Angeles Superior Court in an attempt to force the Charter Oak School District to give him back his job. Once the suit became public knowledge, however, he says he began hearing from other homosexual employees who had stories of discrimination to tell. "They have a history of this. That's when I realized this is bigger than just me," Stein said.

Stein not only led his players through an unbroken string of wins but managed to persuade a department store chain to provide financial support for the team. His troubles at the school began when he disciplined a player for failing to turn in his physical form. The parents became angry when his son was excluded from a practice session and came to the school, where he made homophobic slurs and issued a warning about pictures.

A few days later, the school received an anonymous letter that included a Facebook photo of Stein eating a corn dog at a local fair and one of him in the company of drag queens. The sender wrote that if the coach was not fired, the school board would be notified. Stein offered to take the photos off his Facebook page, but principal Kathleen Wiard fired him.

In his lawsuit, Stein related two cases that he claims demonstrate a double standard in favor of heterosexuals. One teacher published a photo of himself drunk and shirtless but was allowed to keep his job. A former coach who admitted that she drank with underaged team members was actually rehired afterwards.

The coach's former team and many of their parents, along with several gay rights groups, have publicly declared their support for Stein. The former educator says he feels an obligation to other victims of discrimination and his own daughter to press forward with the case. "It's not a fight that we asked for and it's certainly not one that we wanted, but we're certainly not going to back down from a bully," he said.

A Missouri school district is being sued after a district employee punished two students for their off-campus speech. Lee's Summit R-7 School District is accused of violating the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of two honor roll students. The suit was filed in federal court by Brian and Linda Wilson, the parents of the students.

According to court documents, the district suspended the students, who are twin boys, for six months for creating a nonviolent blog. The court is being asked to dismiss the suspensions and expunge them from the boys' school records.

The blog, northpress.tk, was a satirical site that the boys created and maintained on their own computer away from school outside of school hours. According to the suit, the students went to great lengths to prevent the site from being accessed by the general population of their high school, even using a Dutch domain name to make it difficult to find through an Internet search.
The school became involved when administrators learned of the site on the same day that a reader, unbeknownst to the students, posted a racial slur in the comments section of the blog.

Although another student promptly removed the slur, the incident appears to have spurred the district's superintendent, David McGehee, to suspend the boys on the grounds that they were involved with the blog.

In their suit, the parents of the students state that the boys were offered the chance to attend an alternative school for at-risk students. However, the alternative school does not have programs capable of meeting the academic needs of honor students, according to the Wilsons. In addition, the alternative school does not have its own band and will not allow the boys to continue to maintain the leadership roles they have earned in their regular high school's band.

According to court papers, the parents fear the suspension will interfere with the students' chances of being accepted by colleges. In addition, the suit maintains that allowing the school district to punish legal speech that took place away from school will have far-reaching negative consequences. If the district's actions go unchecked, the suit alleges, “The result would be an impermissible chilling effect on speech.”

A lawsuit claiming that an Indiana school district violates federal laws has been reinstated. The suit charges that a school in Franklin County, Indiana, favors the boys’ basketball team over the girls’ team when it comes to scheduling games. A lower court had dismissed the suit, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit disagreed. If the district loses the case, the decision will likely have an impact on public schools across the state.

Two parents with daughters on the girls’ basketball team, including a former girl’s basketball coach for the district, allege that the school gives precedence to the boys’ team when it comes to scheduling games. Boys’ games are more frequently scheduled on Fridays and Saturdays, while girls’ games often get weekday slots.

The parents believe this practice violates Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which stipulates that school programs that take federal money cannot discriminate based on sex.

Paul Neidig, the school's athletic director, did not deny the practice, focusing instead on efforts made in the last ten years to cut down on discrimination against girls’ teams. "Years ago it was not uncommon that girls never played on Fridays and Saturdays," he said.

Neidig defended the school’s practice of reserving coveted slots on the calendar for the boys’ basketball team’s games. According to Neidig, the school has other concerns besides providing equal opportunity to male and female students. In Indiana, he said, athletic programs rely on ticket sales and fundraisers for some of their funding. In defense of the school's practice, he pointed out that attendance is lower at weeknight games than at Friday games, a point also made by the plaintiffs.

According to Neidig, each school's athletic director, along with coaches, determines game schedules. Most of his school's games are on Tuesdays, Fridays or Saturdays, he said. Away games must, of course, be coordinated with the schedules of other teams. Neidig says that his school has a policy of alternating away games between the boys and girls teams.

"We're always trying to balance that schedule," said Neidig. "We don't want parents and school administrators to have to choose which home game they go to."

A lawsuit has been filed in the Miami County (Ohio) Common Pleas Court against the Bethel Local School District’s Board of Education as a result of an attack on a student. The suit maintains that the assault occurred at Bethel High School. The suit, filed by a student and his mother, alleges that the claimant was viciously attacked in April of 2011 by a fellow student who hit the boy and kicked him in the head until he lost consciousness. The victim and his alleged assailant have not been named because they were both minors at the time of the incident.

The original suit accuses the school of providing inadequate supervision. It contends that no faculty or staff was in the vicinity of the attack and no one intervened to stop the assault. According to court documents, the injured boy sustained permanent, severe injuries and is expected to incur ongoing medical expenses as a result of the attack.

The plaintiffs in the case are asking for punitive damages in addition to expenses. The suit also names the parents of the alleged aggressor as parties to the lawsuit. The parents of the student who is accused of attacking the injured boy are pointing the finger at the school district, claiming that the attack is the fault of the school district.

In addition, the parents of the boy who is accused in the attack have filed a countersuit against the victim and his mother. They claim that the alleged victim was actually the aggressor in the incident, and that their own son suffered severe injuries at his hands. They also allege that another child from their family was also the victim of an ongoing pattern of abuse, including bullying and assault, at the hands of the plaintiff.

In the school district’s response to the suit, the district maintains that it acted in good faith and behaved reasonably. The board of education claims that the district had no control over the independent actions of the students involved and has asked that the suit be dismissed.

A lawsuit recently filed against the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) accuses the district of breaking California state law by failing to take student achievement into account during teacher evaluations. Filed by educational reform advocates in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of the parents of six LAUSD students, the suit also originally named the teachers’ union and LAUSD superintendent John Deasy as defendants.

Although California’s Stull Act explicitly states that schools must consider student achievement as part of a teacher’s performance, the suit claims that the LAUSD ignored the law in favor of the terms of the district’s union contract. Instead, the district allegedly conducted only cursory evaluations that consisted of a brief, previously announced visit by a principal to observe a pre-determined lesson. The parents charge that these evaluations are ineffective and result in the failure of only one percent of the teachers who undergo them.

The lawsuit came at a critical juncture for the district, which is in the midst of negotiations for a new contract with the teachers’ union. Although a tentative agreement between the schools and the union was reached shortly after the trial date was set for June of 2012, the agreement made no mention of the evaluation process.

There is little doubt that changes are needed to California’s education system. One in three California students fail to complete high school and many colleges are compelled to offer remedial education to entering freshmen. Enforcing compliance with existing laws would seem to be a reasonable place to start.

Bill Lucia of EdVoice, which filed the suit, has said that the vast majority of California’s schools utilize evaluation procedures that violate the state’s education code. This may be at least partially due to the fact that the unions have a track record of vigorously fighting all attempts to judge the performance of teachers based on the progress of their students. If the LAUSD loses the current suit, it will have little choice but to bring its procedures for evaluating teachers into line with the law. However, California law does not specify how much emphasis a district should put on student performance when evaluating the performance of teachers, leaving observers to speculate as to what effect a victory for the plaintiffs will have.

The prayer banner (see photo) that has graced Cranston West High School for nearly five decades still hangs on a wall of the school. Although the banner is now covered, the Cranston School Committee put off making a decision about what to do with it at a meeting following a court order to remove it. A rally that had been planned to show support for the banner never got off the ground, but local residents crowded a school committee meeting to express their points of view on the matter.

Police officers attended the meeting as a precaution as angry residents who disagree with the court’s ruling voiced their disappointment. Many residents also expressed their anger towards Jessica Ahlquist, the student who sued the school to have the banner taken down. Ahlquist herself spoke at the meeting in between Tweeted communications with fellow students who were also upset by the decision.

Ahlquist, who is an atheist, has been the target of online threats. Cranston West’s superintendent, Peter Nero, said in an interview that a police officer accompanied Ahlquist throughout the day as students returned to school on Tuesday, Jan. 16, 2012, which was the first regular school day after the ruling. However, he said, Ahlquist has not been the target of any threats or violence inside the school.

In a video posted online, Ahlquist said she never expected what she saw as a simple request to have the banner removed to turn into such a firestorm.

"I'd just say, 'Guys, it's a prayer in a public school. Obviously, that doesn't belong.' And the grownups would be like, 'Yeah, obviously, it's separation of church and state. That makes sense.' And it would just come right down," Ahlquist told viewers.

The school committee is planning another meeting on Jan. 24. Residents will be welcome to express their opinions. However, the decision about whether to remove the banner or to appeal the court ruling will be made by the school committee in a private meeting.

A lot of feathers were ruffled by the recent story about a nine-year-old elementary-school student who was suspended from school for remarking to another student that one of their teachers was "cute." People from all over the country were outraged at what many saw as a case political correctness gone wild. Now it appears as though Emanyea Lockett's school district is equally irritated with the actions of the principal who suspended him.

According to Bonnie Reidy, who is the spokesperson for the Gaston County Schools, "We will be sending an official letter of apology to the parents. Also, the suspension will not count against the child and the child will receive additional instructional assistance to make up for the time out of the classroom."

In addition to the public apology, the district announced that the school's principal, Jerry Bostic, who was the one who made the decision to suspend the boy for sexual harassment, has resigned. According to Bostic, the resignation wasn't his idea. In an interview with the Gaston Gazette, the former principal said the district told him he had an hour to resign or face termination. In an interview with a local television station, Bostic complained about his treatment. "One mistake in 44 years, and I'm not given the benefit of the doubt. I really don't believe I was treated fairly."

Here is the full text of the apology that was issued by the Gaston County Schools: "After a thorough investigation by school officials involving the suspension of a fourth grade student at one of our elementary schools, it has been determined there was no sexual harassment. We regret this situation happened.” The superintendent has attempted to contact the family to offer an apology to the parents and student. The school system is also sending an official letter of apology to the parents and student.

"The suspension will not count against the student and additional instructional assistance will be provided to the student for the classroom time missed. If a concern is reported by parents to the district office, our procedure is to investigate it and follow up with the parents."

Mistakes are sometimes made in schools. It is good to see a school district respond so quickly and positively.

School field trips may become a rare treat at some California schools in the wake of a pending lawsuit that has been brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

The lawsuit, which was filed in 2010, charges that the state of California has neglected to enforce the "free school guarantee" that is mandated by the state's own constitution. The ACLU alleges that charging mandatory fees for educational field trips violates the law.

The suit has led California school districts to re-examine their policies on field trip fees. Typically, it has been assumed that parents will pay fees to cover the cost of school-sponsored educational field trips. Children whose parents do not pay the fees simply fall through the cracks if there are no funds provided by booster groups or other parents to cover their costs.

Children who are left behind when their classmates go on trips may or may not have the opportunity to attend their regular classes. The ACLU claims this practice essentially forces parents to pay additional fees if they want their children to have the same educational opportunities as other students in their schools.

California students are guaranteed the right to a free public education by the State's constitution. Allowable fees are specified in the California Education Code and include fees for such things as optional testing, graduation gowns and caps or tickets for dances and other entertainment activities. Any trip that takes place during school hours and takes students away from their regular classes must be free for all students.

According to Yancy Hawkins, who is the fiscal-services manager for the Palo Alto school district, "We can ask for donations, but it has to be just that." Although his district has had to make few changes, it's not so easy for some districts. "In terms of changing what we're doing, there hasn't been a huge impact, and a lot of that is because of the generosity of this community...Kids weren't being excluded in Palo Alto, whereas in a lot of other districts they were, and I think that's where the lawsuit came in," said Hawkins.

The Fontana Unified School District is the subject of a lawsuit filed by the teachers union in the San Bernardino County Superior Court. The suit is demanding that the school district reinstate counselors that the district laid off. The teachers union alleges the counselors should be allowed to return to work on the basis of seniority.

The teachers union claims that the Fontana Unified School District has violated the California Education Code. According to the lawsuit, the district let 68 counselors go after the 2010-2011 school year, then created two new job titles for what was essentially the same position and attempted to hire 42 new counselors.

According to Pat Mazzulli, president of the Fontana Teachers Association, the new counselor positions are “substantially similar” to the old counseling positions. “Rather than follow procedure in the Education Code, the FUSD made reduction in force counselors reapply and interview for their jobs. FUSD attempted to hire outside the district as well," Mazzulli said. According to Mazzulli, the California Education Code requires that the laid-off counselors be given the opportunity to accept or refuse substitute slots before the jobs are offered to new applicants.

The Fontana Unified School District denies any wrongdoing and insists the new counseling positions are entirely different from the old ones. William Wu, assistant superintendent of human resources for the school district, said in an interview that "the district reviewed the comprehensive counseling program, tailored it to the needs of the district and then created new district positions to provide better and different student services…They are not the same as the comprehensive counseling program." Furthermore, said Wu, “The district is not in the business of violating peoples' rights. We are in the business of serving children, but we are not in the business of violating peoples' rights in the process.”

However, the school board has postponed plans to hire applicants for the new positions. According to Mazzulli, no trial date has been set.

A special education teacher has been placed on paid administrative leave after a parent discovered he had posted derogatory pictures and comments about his students on Facebook. Jeremy Hollinger, who is employed by the Mobile (Alabama) County Public School system to teach special education at Eichold-Mertz Elementary School, posted the comments and pictures on his public Facebook page.

Celeste Dennis, who saw Hollinger's site, was upset enough to insist her son, a second-grader at Eichold-Mertz, be transferred out of the school. Although she says there were plenty of derogatory comments on the page, including posts about students soiling themselves and eating crayons, she says that one insult hit especially close to home. "It hurt. It genuinely hurt me, said Dennis."My son wears a helmet for seizures during P.E. He had a picture of himself with my son's helmet on making fun of him like that was some type of a joke."

Dennis responded to the cruel postings by reporting Hollinger to the school system and insisting that her son be transferred. The school was slow to take action against Hollinger, however, and he remained in his position at the school until after the incident caught the attention of the press. Initially, the school system refused to explain why Hollinger was still at his post. Nancy Pierce, the school's representative, initially declined to discuss the matter, saying, “Because it's a personnel matter, I can't discuss that with you. The appropriate measures were taken by our Human Resources Department."

However, on Tuesday, October 18, it was revealed that Hollinger had been suspended with pay as a result of the incident. In the meantime, Dennis hopes the suspension becomes permanent. "It takes a special type of person to deal with special children, and he is not that person," said Dennis. "I just want him out of there."

A San Fernando Valley (CA) school district will pay more than $1 million to a middle school student who was used in an amateur drug sting by school officials at Porter Middle School. The Los Angeles Superior Court found in favor of the boy, known in court documents only as “Roe,“ and awarded him $1 million for his ongoing emotional distress, as well as $15,250 for tutoring.

According to court documents, in 2010 the 12-year-old boy reported that another student was selling marijuana on school grounds. The court determined that after the boy reported the problem, Joyce Edelson, the Principal of the school, Armando Mejia the Assistant Vice Principal, and Laura Custodio, Dean of Students came up with the idea to conduct a television-style drug sting on their own without consulting police or the boy’s parents.

The scheme involved giving the 12-year-old cash and having him attempt buy drugs from the suspected dealer. After the “sting,” the boy began receiving death threats from other students and was forced to leave the school for his own protection.

Alexander Calfo of Yukevich Calfo & Cavanaugh, who represented the plaintiff in the case, pointed out that using a minor in a drug sting is against the law. Furthermore, the action was in violation of school policy. According to Calfo, “Pursuant to their own policies and procedures, all they had to do was pick up the phone. Call the parents. Call the police. There were other methods, other than invading or intruding into this boy’s life.”

The defense admitted administration officials broke the law but said that the officials involved felt that the situation was severe and merited the action. He also stressed that they never intended to harm the boy. The attorney defending school officials stated that the assistant principal “felt that it was so important to act then and act swiftly that he didn’t think about the potential consequences down the road. He felt that the greater concern was to act swiftly and to do something to take care of the problem.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado and the ACLU Women’s Rights Project have indicated their intent to take legal action on behalf of a Jefferson County teacher who was fired for exercising her right under state and federal anti-discrimination laws to express her breast milk at work.

The ACLU took the first step towards bringing suit against the Rocky Mountain Academy of Evergreen (RMAE) by filing a state notice of claim against Rocky Mountain and a federal complaint of discrimination on behalf of Heather Burgbacher.

Burgbacher taught at Rocky Mountain for five years and consistently received positive evaluations. When Burgbacher tried to exercise her legal right to express milk at work, Rocky Mountain refused to allow her to pump and even told her she should feed her baby formula. Breastfeeding requires the mother to express milk at regular intervals throughout the day in order to maintain an adequate supply of milk to nourish her baby. Formula is considered an inferior substitute for breast milk.

After mediation forced the school to accommodate Burgbacher's legal rights, the school made plans to terminate her contract. Burgbacher's supervisor informed her that the sole reason for the termination was her request to pump. However, Colorado's Workplace Accommodations for Nursing Mothers Act recognizes the benefits of breastfeeding to health and society at large and grants mothers the unequivocal right to express milk at work and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for nursing mothers who need to pump at work.

“Colorado law explicitly states that no mother should have to choose between breastfeeding her baby and keeping her job. Yet that’s precisely the position in which RMAE placed Ms. Burgbacher,” said Rebecca T. Wallace of the ACLU.

In their legal filings, the ACLU references the Colorado statute as well as federal laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex or pregnancy and forbids employers from retaliating against employees who protest violations of the anti-discrimination laws.

The parent of a San Jose Unified School District pupil has appealed the dismissal of her school district lawsuit to a California appellate court.

Plaintiff Norina Mooney got riled up when the local Lesbian and Gay Bisexual Transgender (“LGBT”) chapter sponsored a “Rainbow Day” celebration at her adolescent’s middle school. Immediately after the event, Mooney requested the insertion of several new items into the school district’s agenda. Her purported reason for making the request was to garner greater event participation by non-LGBT students affected by bullying.

Despite state legislation that mandates the inclusion of such private input into school district agendas, school district officials denied Mooney's request. The stated reason for the refusal was an alleged lack of jurisdiction over middle school decision makers in such matters. In the ensuing school district lawsuit, Mooney seeks injunctive relief to compel educational authorities to adopt her previously proposed agenda modifications.

The Public Justice Institute (“PJI”) is the plaintiff's current legal counsel in this case. PJI president Brad Dacas posited that tolerating the improper imposition of social agendas on the public by its own elected officials is bad. According to Dacas, however, societal acquiescence in the unconstitutional denial of statutory rights to individual expression is far worse.

Dacas further advanced free societies cannot countenance the systematic stifling of open debate about vital public interest concerns.

For now, the question remains open as to whether the California school district officials involved in this case indeed committed grievous legal error. An indisputable fact is that the avoidance of improper conduct or even the appearance of same is crucial for all public school officials.

An African American high school graduate recently sued her school district and several of its officials. Except for one “B“, Kymberly Wimberly earned all “A’s” during her entire tenure at McGehee Secondary School in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. She also completed several advanced courses and earned numerous academic awards.

Despite this exemplary record and having the highest grade point average (“GPA”) in her class, Kymberly was denied the designation of sole valedictorian. Her lawsuit alleges that racial discrimination was the underlying motivation.

Her legal complaint (available HERE) posits that school administrators favored two white students as “heir[s] apparent” to the coveted “Valedictorian” and “Salutatorian” titles.

Kymberly’s mother, Molly Bratton, claims to have overheard educators express concern that acknowledging Kymberly’s rightful place in the Class of 2011 might create a “mess.” The following day, school principal Darrell Thompson told Bratton that a white student whose GPA was lower than Kimberley’s would be “co-valedictorian.”

School Superintendent Thomas Gathen purportedly prevented Bratton from protesting the co-nomination at a subsequent school board meeting. His stated reason was Bratton’s “failure” to complete the correct grievance form. Gathen also precluded Bratton from appealing his decision until after Kymberly’s graduation.

Per court documents, school officials engaged in a pervasive pattern of racial discrimination. Nearly half of the student body is African American. Nonetheless, more than two decades have passed since a Black pupil’s nomination as class valedictorian.

Kymberly’s suit seeks injunctive relief to compel her retroactive nomination as sole valedictorian. She is also demanding punitive damages.

The outcome of this case depends largely upon whether the court finds that school officials’ denial of Kymberly’s status as sole valedictorian constituted intentional discrimination. Because it is a mental state, intent is always impossible to prove categorically. It may, however, be extrapolated from the circumstances that surround an act or event.

A federal appeals court has refused to order the reinstatement of a student suspended for cyber bullying. Kara Kowalski was a senior at Musselman High School in West Virginia when she launched her vicious attack against a classmate. Kara’s weapon of destruction was a personalized MySpace page entitled “S.A.S.H.”

At subsequent court hearings, Kara stated that S.A.S.H was an acronym for “Students Against Sluts Herpes.” She went on to allege that another student started a false rumor that the title really represented “Students Against Shay’s Herpes.”

Nonetheless, numerous youth immediately posted images of Shay on S.A.S.H. All of the intentionally altered pictures suggested that Shay had a venereal disease. Shay suffered severe harassment and ostracism as a direct and proximate cause thereof.

When Shay’s parents complained to authorities about this offensive content, school administrator deemed that S.A.S.H. was indeed a “hate website.” Official school policy prohibits cyber bullying. Accordingly, Kara received a five-day disciplinary suspension.

The ensuing litigation posited that this punishment violated Kara’s constitutional rights to due process and free speech.

The court rejected those claims, however. The sole purpose of S.A.S.H. as a forum for defamatory publication and derogatory depictions seems to have been the underlying rationale.

Thus, the Fourth Circuit jurists ruled that school officials did not usurp their legal authority by suspending Kara. Judge Paul V. Neimeyer penned the majority view. In it, he opined that school officials acted appropriately by taking Kara’s callous disregard for a fellow student very seriously.

In addition to being suspended, Kara was prohibited from crowning her successor to the “Queen of Charm” throne. She also lost a cheerleading post.

Ironically, Kara also claimed to have suffered severe depression and social isolation as collateral consequences. The court was apathetic to those assertions, however.

This is a great example of school authorities doing the right thing for the right reasons.

The last paragraph of the Court’s decision says it best: “Rather than respond constructively to the school’s efforts to bring order and provide a lesson following the incident, Kowalski has rejected those efforts and sued school authorities for damages and other relief. Regretfully, she yet fails to see that such harassment and bullying is inappropriate and hurtful and that it must be taken seriously by school administrators in order to preserve an appropriate pedagogical environment. Indeed, school administrators are becoming increasingly alarmed by the phenomenon, and the events in this case are but one example of such bullying and school administrators’ efforts to contain it. Suffice it to hold here that, where such speech has a sufficient nexus with the school, the Constitution is not written to hinder school administrators’ good faith efforts to address the problem."

An official state investigation in Georgia revealed the routine falsification of student test scores by Atlanta public school officials. A long-standing history of problems within that city’s public schools apparently prompted these improprieties.

Reportedly, nearly 200 faculty members at 44 different schools perpetrated the fraud. Nearly half of the culprits have confessed in the scandalous aftermath.

Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed referred to this outrage as a “dark day” for his city’s public schools. Reed further noted that it represented a severe leadership failure that negatively impacted thousands of pupils.

Endemic fear of reprisals apparently facilitated the fraud’s longevity. Now that the cat is out of the bag, many will lose their positions. In addition, most of the co-conspirators now face criminal prosecutions throughout three surrounding counties.

This shocking revelation comes as no surprise to cynical commentators. Numerous reports by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution had previously spawned widespread suspicion about highly improbable pupil performance levels. Such questions sparked the state investigation that ultimately disclosed numerous test answer erasures.

Endemic educator falsifications have fueled rampant rifts among local religious and business leaders. A turbulent tug-of-war over power among school board members has also ignited.

The cumulative detriment to students affected by the artificial score alterations is hard to quantify. Investigators estimate that as many as 12,000 remedial pupils’ test scores were tampered with.

Parental reactions reflect a mixture of emotions. Adults expressed empathy for teachers coerced into cooperating with and covering up the scandal and concerns over their children’s quality of education.

Recently released federal correspondence charged officials of the Tehachapi Unified School District in central California with gross negligence. The letter alleged that educators failed to properly respond to and rectify repeated harassment complaints from a 13-year-old student.

The relentless taunting resulted from the boy’s alleged homosexuality. Last September, the student killed himself in response to intolerable social isolation. Consequently, his mother filed a federal civil rights action against the school district.

Her litigation sparked an in-depth governmental investigation. The official conclusion was that school authorities had indeed shirked their legal duty to protect its pupil against "persistent, pervasive and often severe sex-based harassment."

A report by the US Dept. of Justice revealed that the student endured more than two years of malicious taunting, inappropriate touching, and having objects hurled at him. Conditions became so severe that he stopped donning gymnasium attire in the locker room. He feared assaults from fellow classmates.

The vice-principal once dismissed such complaints by citing the “difficult age” of students and his inability to change inherent attitudes instilled by their parents.

In another instance, the principal asked Seth to point out his harassers from school yearbook pictures. He took no further action, however, because the boy could not recite his harassers‘ names.

In partial settlement of this case, the school district agreed to retrain faculty and staff and to submit to several years of intensive monitoring of its anti-harassment remedial efforts. The school district Superintendent expressed positive anticipation about these changes.

American Civil Liberties Union attorney James Gillian represents the boy’s mother. Gilliam expressed being “ecstatic” over the official confirmation of his client’s allegations. He further posited that this case will set a precedent by sending the message to school officials throughout the entire nation that they have a positive duty to protect pupils.

Last month, a Philadelphia state court‘s reversal of a six-year-old kindergartener’s expulsion sparked renewed controversy over school rules and school district law.

The preschooler was expelled from the First Philadelphia Charter School for Literacy for touching his teacher’s thighs. Court documents quoted the boy as saying that he only wanted to “make them feel better” after the teacher complained of leg pain.

A Philadelphia Common Court of Pleas recently agreed. In a May 23 ruling, Honorable Paul P. Panepinto found that the child only intended to comfort his teacher.

The heart of legal contention lies in the question of whether charter schools should have greater legal license in student discipline than other institutions. Arguing in the affirmative, charter school operators cite students’ ability to resume instruction at public schools following expulsion from charter facilities.

Critics charge that such a double standard is legally impermissible, however.

History of Disruption?

Court documents revealed three prior expulsions during the plaintiff‘s enrollment. The first occurred last December after the boy touched a female classmate’s buttocks beneath a table while attempting to retrieve mislaid crayons.

He was suspended on two subsequent occasions for allegedly tripping, shoving, or stepping on the toes of other children. According to legal pleadings, the child was a habitual disciplinary problem. One staff member ranked his disruptive behavior as “8” on a scale of 1 to 10.

Judge Panepinto limited his focus to the thigh-touching incident in ruling that the boy’s final expulsion last March was an abuse of school officials’ discretion. In so finding, the court opined that such conduct was developmentally normal.

School officials view the matter much more seriously, however. In court briefs, school district attorneys posited that touching an adult teacher’s upper thighs was inappropriate conduct in a classroom.

The current posture of the case is pending mandatory court mediation. Absent a satisfactory settlement, it will advance to the Commonwealth Court. Meanwhile, the kindergartner is enrolled in a private school where he has reportedly presented no major behavioral problems.

Broader questions of education law and/or school district law loom large in the backdrop of this litigation, as charter schools proliferate across the nation. In this writer’s view, uniformity is in the best long-term interests of our nation’s youth. Mere piecemeal accountability leaves them at the mercy of capricious school authorities.

Los Angeles schools will have to find a new way to fund extracurricular programs. Currently, many school districts charge activity fees to its students as a way to bring in more funding for the extra programs and activities. Due to a December 2010 lawsuit that ruled it unconstitutional to charge fees for extracurricular activities, school districts will have to come up with a more creative alternative.

The December lawsuit brought on by the American Civil Liberties Union, claimed that many area districts were illegally charging students for various activities and clubs. According to the lawsuit, it's illegal to accept these types of fees in a public school district setting. This law is now in effect for activities ranging from sports teams, cheer squads, musical groups, booster clubs and other school community organizations.

Currently, a law is pending which will penalize the school districts that have been illegally charging these fees. The law will also require all educational materials and supplies to be available free of charge.

This will leave many school districts looking for new ways to bring in money for these programs. Many districts are already struggling to keep extra activities and programs available. In order to keep some of these programs, school districts will be looking for donations and volunteer support.

Schools will begin to be audited during the following school year.

Some area schools have already taken steps to get rid of activity fees, and have been successful with a volunteer base. Many of these school districts are able to continue the many extracurricular activities and program without the use of student activity fees.

Unfortunately, many school districts may not be able to get the funding and support that is needed to keep the many programs running. This will make it extremely difficult to have a wide variety of programs and activities for the students.

It will be interesting to see how creative school districts get, when looking for funding options. Hopefully most schools will still be able to provide the same level of programs and activities to students.

Michele Vulcano Hall is currently fighting to keep her case against the Easton Area (PA) School District alive in Federal District Court. The school district’s attorneys have asked the court to dismiss Vulcano Hall’s claims on the grounds that she has failed to prove the violation of any legally-protected right.

In August of 2008, Vulcano Hall was engaged in a practical skills workshop internship when the district offered her a full-time teaching job. She was fired one year later. In her lawsuit, Vulcano Hall alleged she was dismissed in retaliation for her father’s position as a vocal school board member.

In response, the district denied any retaliatory motive. Further, it alleged that Vulcano Hall’s employment was a 10-month temporary position. The district admits, however, that its primary motive for terminating Vulcano Hall’s employment was her failure to attain full certification.

Currently, Vulcano Hall works as a substitute teacher for the district. Although she does not possess full teaching certification, her current credentials are sufficient for substitute teaching. During her prior 10-month teaching tenure in the district, Vulcano Hall taught subjects in multimedia/study skills.

The entire case appears to turn upon two primary points of contention: 1) Whether or not Vulcano Hall’s former teaching position was permanent or temporary employee; and, 2) The true motive for her eventual termination.

Hall’s attorney argued that her client had received written and verbal assurances of 2 to 3-year extension of time to earn full teaching certification. The district had purportedly made an exception to this policy for Vulcano Hall, as she has several long-term learning disabilities.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) requires employers to make “reasonable accommodation” for disabled workers. Felker also invoked a Pennsylvania statute that requires prior unsatisfactory job ratings as a condition precedent for terminating public employment. Allegedly, Vulcano Hall consistently received positive evaluations.
Hall’s attorney asked that the court allow the modification of original pleadings if it finds that they do not sufficiently set forth Vulcano Hall’s legal claims. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows judges to permit the amendment of complaint documents in such instances.

In response to severe imminent budgetary crises which could include cuts of more than $407 Million and elimination of up to 2500 staff positions, the Clark County School District (“CCSD”) filed suit against the local teachers’ union earlier this month. In its lawsuit, the school district petitioned the Eighth Judicial District Court to rule on a proposed increase in employee retirement contributions. Currently, school district employees participate in the state’s Public Employees’ Retirement System (“PERS”). Purportedly, a 1.125 percent hike in mandatory employee contributions is slated to begin on July 1.

The suit alleges that district workers must incur the increase instead of an equal pay raise. Alternatively, employees may elect to accept an offsetting salary reduction. School district officials maintain that the collective costs to its employees will total $14 million. Ultimately, they claim, the school district will sustain the loss.

In an apparent effort to clarify the value of this multimillion-dollar figure, the district equated the sum to 200 full-time school district employee slots. Litigation documents further detailed the district’s ongoing negotiations for revised employment contracts with the teachers’ union. If negotiations are successful, the new contracts would become effective with the 2011-2012 academic year. Meanwhile, state legislators are contemplating the legalities of CCSD’s proposed budget cuts.

Ostensibly, the district is seeking declaratory relief in case it is unable to reach a compromise with the teachers’ union. If granted, such relief would constitute a restraining order. The court order would ultimately become moot by the terms of a renegotiated contract or binding arbitration.

To date, the teachers’ union has not filed a formal response to the school district’s claims.

The Woodland Hills (Pittsburgh, PA) School District has agreed to pay $25,000 per year, plus a 3% annual inflationary increase, to the family of an elementary school aged student diagnosed with autism and mental retardation. The agreement will enable the family to seek private education for their child.

The suit, on behalf of an unnamed family, alleged that the district’s plan to place the then-six-year-old child diagnosed with autism and mental retardation, in Wilkins Primary School was inconsistent with the educational requirements laid out in the federal Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act and other laws. It argued that the Pace School, a private school for emotionally disturbed and developmentally disabled children in Churchill, PA was significantly better equipped to meet the child's needs. The family's attorney stated that the family "felt very strongly ... that the private placement was what was best for their child" therefore the district’s plan would not meet their child’s needs.

The federal civil lawsuit was filed in U.S. District court last May and resolved in mediation this February. The payments, required for 15 years, will allow the family to send their child to the Pace School, despite the fact that it only partially covers the tuition expenses the family will incur.

In a ruling by the Arizona Court of Appeals handed down on March 31, 2011 the Congress School District, located in Yavapai County, has been ordered to supply records sought by four local residents.

The Congress School District had rejected the records requests by the four residents claiming that it was "vexatious," due to the number of previous requests for records by the individuals.

The ruling by the Court of Appeals stated that the school district did not provide evidence to prove the requests unreasonable and that the records are available to the public by law. The ruling also stated that the public has a right to information regarding the district and how it conducts business. Requests for, and access to, this information does not constitute a public nuisance.

There were a total of 55 requests for records by the four residents for information during the 2008-2009 school year. There were also four complaints filed that year with the Arizona Ombudsman's Office, the agency in charge of complaint review, due to lack of response to the requests. The residents filed an additional 13 information requests during the 2009-2010 school year.

The response by the school district to the repeated requests for information was to sue in an effort to block any future records requests, stating that they are a "public nuisance, an abuse of laws regarding public records and harassment." No mention was made, however, that any of the previous requests were improper or illegitimate.

In the ruling, the judge wrote that the officials from the Congress School District did not provide proof of any request made for non-public records.

Citing the arguments in the suit by the school district as 'preemptive action,' the judge stated that it was inappropriate but that the school district was welcome to seek legal action in the future to bar any requests that are outside the bounds of public records law.

The Congress School District has also been ordered to pay the legal expenses incurred by the individuals due to the court proceedings.

A student complaining about a grade is certainly not a new development but threatening to file a lawsuit against a student for disputing a grade is a different story. As hard as it is to imagine such a thing, that's exactly what happened to young Monserrat Ramirez of California. The girl contested her grade after her teacher gave the group she was in a C+.

Ramirez went through the proper channels, first appealing to her teacher, then to the administrators of the school. Finally after finding no suitable resolution elsewhere Ramirez turned to the Basset Unified (La Puente, CA) school board to have the matter resolved and that's when the young woman was issued a letter from the teacher's lawyer, Michael Feinberg.

In a letter sent from Feinberg's law firm, Ramirez was told that her comments and communication with the school board were classified as "actionable slander" and was advised that further comments from her could result in "costly litigation". Initially the letter had the desired impact, essentially silencing Ramirez.

"I was going to give up as soon as I saw that." Ramirez said.

This would be the end of the story in most cases, but 18 year old Ramirez isn't like most people. The honors student with a 3.5 GPA couldn't just stand by and let this go; her grades were hard earned and one teacher shouldn't be able to put a black mark on an otherwise excellent student record.

The teacher, Tom Covington, taught Ramirez's yearbook class. While the other students in her group were goofing off or failing to show up at all, Ramirez showed up faithfully and completed all work assigned to her within the time allotted. When an editor for the yearbook quit Ramirez was responsible for the work of that editor in addition to her own.

Bassett Unified Superintendent Marty Galindo confirmed that Ramirez followed proper channels when contesting her grade and said he feels Covington's actions were "unfortunate and overboard".

Tom Covington defended his actions by stating that: "My intent was to have this little girl stop dragging my name through the mud. As a teacher, what I have to go on is my reputation and false accusations can wreak havoc on a career."

The threatened lawsuit against Ramirez may be a potential suppression of First Amendment rights. Covington's lawyer declined to comment on the matter.

Employment law as it pertains to public employees in Wisconsin is set to undergo a significant transformation if and when the state Senate passes Governor Scott Walker's controversial Budget Repair Bill. The specifics of the legislation were made public in early February, with the Assembly approving the bill on February 25. It remains unclear when the proposed law will be subject to a vote in the Senate.

No matter which side of the aisle one sits, it is indisputable that the proposed legislation is poised to drastically alter how public sector unions function. Employers impacted by the potential changes will be need time to adjust their practices to adapt to a new employment law landscape, though certain portions of the legislation would necessitate almost immediate changes for public sector unions and their membership.

The Governor maintains that the bill offers the only hope of preventing significant pubic employee layoffs resulting from the state's growing financial instability. While Mr. Walker has provided a great deal of information intended to support his party's position on the proposed legislation, opponents and public sector union s have disputed the bill's necessity and have organized large-scale demonstrations at the capitol over the past few weeks. The Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC) estimates that upwards of 200,000 individuals represented by 2,000 collective bargaining units in Wisconsin could be affected.

Among the possible change for public employees (with the exception of some public safety personnel) are:

Limitations on collective bargaining, including a prohibition on bargaining over issues not under the umbrella of the Wisconsin Municipal Employment Relations Act would be enacted. Preliminary certification elections would occur in April 2011 to decide if bargaining unit members desire continued union representation, or else face decertification. Union contracts would be limited in duration, dues could no longer be required for union membership, and collection of dues through salary deduction would become illegal.

Covered employees would pay one-half of retirement contributions as prescribed by the Employee Trust Fund Board, and it would no longer be permissible for most public sector employers to make employee-required contributions on their behalf.

Employer categories affected by the legislation would no longer be permitted to pay greater than 88 percent of the average cost of group insurance plans falling into the cheapest employee premium tier.

The employers specified in the law would be permitted to fire public sector employees taking part in strikes, work stoppages or other organized protests, or those missing work without prior authorization for a period exceeding three days.

Because of the substantial potential changes embodied in the proposed legislation, public sector employers are well advised to monitor developments in the capitol as they continue to unfold.

The following is the new "invocation" disclaimer added by the Polk County (Florida) School Board to all meeting agendas:

"Voluntary invocation may be offered before the opening of the School Board meeting by a private citizen. The views or beliefs expressed in the invocation have not been reviewed nor approved by the School Board, and the Board is not allowed, by law, to endorse the religious beliefs or views of this, or any other speaker."

The addition of the disclaimer comes after the attorney for the school board, Wes Bridges, received a letter from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The organization threatened a lawsuit if the members of the school board continued to include prayers in its meetings. The disclaimer helps to ensure that the school board is not working to promote or to establish any type of religion.

If the school board were to face the lawsuit, it could cost the school board up to $500,000 in legal fees to fight the lawsuit and even more if the school board loses the legal fight. As a way to bridge the gap, Bridges used the aforementioned disclaimer and to allow these types of prayers to only occur prior to the start of the meeting, which officially begins at the sound of the gavel dropping.

Bridges states that it is not unconstitutional for a school board to have invocations, but this disclaimer helps ensure the school board is not stepping outside of the laws otherwise. He proposed other options for avoiding the litigation as well, but this is the remedy the school board decided upon.

The Vice Chairman of the School Board, Tim Harris, stated that he was concerned with why the school board was the target of the Freedom From Religion Foundation when state legislators and Congress open meetings with prayers as well.

In La Quinta, California, the Desert Sands Unified School District is being sued in federal court because the school will not include bricks bearing Bible verses in the sidewalk. The bricks were part of a fundraiser used to build the sidewalk. The Alliance Defense Fund is suing the school district on behalf of two people, Lou Ann Hart and Sheryl Caronna. The two claim that the school violated the First Amendment Rights of the individuals when the bricks were rejected based on religious merit.

The attorney representing the Alliance Defense Fund believes that the government is signaling out religious viewpoints. He is quoted as saying, "Christians have the same First Amendment -protected rights as everyone else does on public school campuses and their messages are no less worthy of exposure than other individuals."

The bricks were rejected, according to the lawsuit, by the district based on constitutional "separation of church and state." The complaint also stated that neither woman received a refund. The Alliance Defense Fund wants the district to pay monetary damages to the women, and pay attorney fees, and to include the bricks in the sidewalk.

Resident of Palm Desert, Hart, purchased the bricks, which measured four by eight inches, and Caronna, from Rancho Mirage, purchased an eight by eight inch brick. The two purchased the bricks to provide a message of hope for students.

After the bricks were made, the women were notified by the school district that the bricks would not be displayed in the project. That was in August of 2010. The school district claims it is looking into the situation and believes the filing of the lawsuit was premature.

The case, Hart V. Tomack, was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Tomack is a member of the school board.

The Sarasota (Florida) County School District has reached a settlement over a lawsuit filed by a student alleging mistreatment. The district will pay $52,500 to settle the claim. The claim comes from a developmentally disabled student who states that she was mistreated by her teacher, Diana O'Neill, from Venice Elementary School. The teacher no longer works for the school.

The parents of the girl will drop the lawsuit against the district but still can file additional lawsuits against the teacher. All school board members and the district have agreed to settle the claim.

However, all is not in the clear for the school district since three other students have come forward alleging further abuse. They have sent letters of intent to sue to the district.

The current settled lawsuit states that the teacher pinched, poked, slapped and shoved the disabled student and called her a "fat ass" and a "waste of air." This occurred when the student did not respond to the teacher. The student is missing half of her brain, which was surgically removed as an infant. The student is unable to talk, see or walk. According to the lawsuit, the day the student was abused, she came home with bruises.

The student's attorney, states that the student was unable to communicate her abuse to the parents since she does not communicate. The parents state that they sent the child to school daily without any idea of the child's poor handling.

O'Neill did not comment on the settlement. The amount of the settlement was reached through mediated session.

The teacher was arrested in 2008 on charges that she abused the disabled students in her care. She was acquitted of those charges. She kept her job in the school district but does not work as a teacher, but rather works in the record's department. It is possible that she could lose her teaching certificate. A state administrative judge is scheduled to hear the case against O'Neill later this month, and will then make a recommendation about revoking her teaching certificate.

The Education Practices Commission will then vote whether to accept the judge's recommended order. If the commission revokes her teaching certificate, the district would be able to fire O'Neill since she would no longer be qualified for her $78,000/year job.

The Fargo (North Dakota) School District has agreed to pay a sum of $300,000 in damages to a former student and his attorney. The school district agreed to settle the bullying case out of court to reduce costs. The former student alleges that he was bullied in the school system by other students from the 5th through the 9th grade.

The former student is now 21. The student left the Fargo public school system, but returned and later graduated from the high school. According to his attorney, the former student is happy with the outcome and that the school will be putting new bullying programs in place.

According to the school district, the claim has been paid by the North Dakota Insurance Reserve Fund. Mediation was used to help reach the agreement, which occurred late in 2010.

As part of the agreement, the school district has agreed to improve training to teachers and other school staff on how to notice and react to bullying occurring between students. Additionally, a curriculum that includes programs designed to teach students about bullying will be implemented at all grade levels within the school district.

The school district stated that it will develop a strong anti-bullying program that is aimed at preventing bullying from occurring and how to deal with it if it does occur. The school district will combine forces with staff, parents and the community in order to formulate effective programs, along with the help of legislators.

The lawsuit originally brought against the school district claimed that the district did not respond to the complaints of the student about the bullying and that the school did not do enough to punish those doing the bullying. The former student continues to deal with the emotional effects and ongoing depression related to the bullying.

Potential sexual harassment which may have led to a teenager’s suicide, prompted the teen’s mother, Wendy Walsh to contact the American Civil Liberties Union. The mother, along with her attorney submitted a seven page letter to the Tehachapi Unified School District. The letter requests the school district to take action to respond with a satisfactory remedy for the alleged ongoing sexual harassment.

The attorney has not yet filed a lawsuit against the school district but instead is hoping for a more positive outcome. The attorney filed a complaint with the United States Department of Education Office of Civil Rights as well, asking the organization to investigate the school district.

The mother wants to understand why the school district did not take action when she complained about her son’s treatment throughout the years. Seth Walsh was 13 years old.
The Tehachapi Unified School District’s superintendent says that federal investigators have interviewed staff, teachers, principals and students on December 15th and 16th.

Walsh states that her son began reporting problems in the 5th grade. He later reported problems in middle school. Walsh filed reports to teachers and administers. In one instance, Seth asked for help to which a teacher responded, “That’s right, you do need help.” Later, the mother took the boy out of school. Her son was called “queer” by other students in front of his mother. At that incident, the mother found the student who made the comments and escorted the student to the office.

After enrolling in various programs, the student was brought back to the school where he was later pushed into lockers and ridiculed. The parent eventually pulled the boy out of school again, at which time he was enrolled in an Independent Study program, with “sexual orientation ridicule” as being the reason for his inability to remain in regular school.

The student continued to be abused by various other students, including one incident in which he was teased by three boys and a girl in a park. That day, he went home, showered and changed, then hung himself from a tree in the backyard.

The complaint filed by Walsh is, she states, in the hopes that better resources are made available to people in her son’s situation. Seth’s death was more than one day of problems at the park but was about years of abusive behavior about the child’s sexual orientation.

The parents of an eight year old special needs child have filed a lawsuit against the township of Voorhees’s school, in New Jersey. The parents allege that their eight year old girl was sexually harassed by a boy on the bus and at school. The suit was filed in federal court in Camden.

The lawsuit against the school states that the school district did not protect the child from the repeated occurrences, which occurred at Signal Hill School by an eleven year old student.

According to the lawsuit, the employees at the school showed deliberate indifference to the alleged harassment. The parent’s concerns, the lawsuit states, which they voiced to the teacher, received a response from the teacher indicating that the eight year old should wear a bra.

The harassment started in the spring of 2010 when the boy encouraged the girl to expose herself on the bus. The parent’s allege that the boy continued the harassment by asking to see “private parts and touching her butt.” The mother contacted the teacher and the teacher said that the boy was “such a nice boy” and stated that the girl’s statements could be a form of attention getting.

The harassment continued into the next school year. In another incident, the boy “touched breasts while asking to see them” and continued to do so on the bus ride home that day. The girl stated that because she was pressured, she pulled down her shirt to and showed him.

The lawsuit requests that adult monitors be placed on all school buses in the township, among other things. It would also require the school district to put in place methods to investigate the complaints of sexual harassment within the district.

The lawsuit alleges that the girl’s education suffered because she was continually monitoring where the student was. In response to the claims, the school moved the student to the back of the class, even though her individual education program requires her to be near the front of the class. The girl has auditory processing disorders.

The school district was unable to comment and has not responded to the lawsuit. The lawsuit seeks damages to cover medical and legal costs as well as funding for home instruction for the girl until an alternative school can be obtained, at the district’s expense.

A civil lawsuit brought against the Los Angeles County Office of Education was settled. The lawsuit stated that students within the district were being punished for asking for instruction and that teachers at the school in question, Camp Challenger in Lancaster, were routinely missing classes.

According to a statement released by the education office, the teaching staff will be examined and changes made. Teachers will be retrained. In addition, as part of the lawsuit settlement, career programs and new literacy programs will be put into place. The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit.

According to the ACLU, students were graduating from the school without being able to read. According to Mark Rosenbaum, who is the attorney working on behalf of the ACLU, “these kids could not fill out job applications or read basic signs.”

In the lawsuit, it is alleged that the civil rights violations occurred and deprivation of education that is legally mandated was not provided to students enrolled at the facility. As a result of the class action lawsuit, about one quarter of the teachers have been transferred or resigned. The principal and the assistant principals may face legal charges. A federal judge will need to approve the settlement.

The office of education is like to work with various professionals to improve the education of youths who attend the high school. In addition, the county’s educational program will move towards courses that include special education, instruction, literacy and other areas of specific need. Another action of the settlement forms the Challenger Reform Taskforce, which will be responsible for monitoring the reforms occurring at the school to ensure they are being taken seriously. The county will also likely pay attorney’s fees and other expenses related to the case.

After a student was suspended from school for wearing a nose piercing, a federal judge ruled that the North Carolina school must allow the 14 year old to return to school. The nose piercing, the student says, is a part of her religious beliefs.

The federal judge, US District Judge Malcolm Howard stated his decision which allowed the student, Ariana Iacono to return to school. The Johnston County school system dress code states that any facial piercings are not allowed. However, there are exemptions in place for religious beliefs.

The attorney for the school district declined to comment about the federal ruling.

Another hearing is scheduled for November 3rd and the student will be able to continue classes at Clayton High School until at least that time.

The student’s attorney, Jon Sasser and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the school officials stating that the student’s constitutional rights were violated when she was suspended several times since classes started. The student and her mother state that the nose piercing is not a fashion statement but part of the student’s religious beliefs.

The Iaconos are part of a small religious group called the Church of Body Modification, consisting of 3,500 worshippers, a small clergy, a statement of beliefs, and regular religious practices. The group believes that piercings and tattoos are a religious devotion. The religion was first incorporated in July of 2008 in Pennsylvania.

The school’s dress code allows for exemptions based on “sincerely held religious beliefs” and “the principal or the designees should not attempt to determine whether the religious beliefs are valid but if they are central to religious doctrine and sincerely held.”

Since the start of school Ariana Iacono has been suspended four times missing 20 days of class. The student was told that she would have to attend the South Campus Community School, which is a facility designated for those students who have disciplinary or other problems. She would still not be allowed to wear a nose piercing.

The parents of a student attending District 2 in Sumter, South Carolina have filed a lawsuit stating that the child was repeatedly bullied and school officials did not take action to correct the problem, resulting in gross negligence.

The parents, Tina and Brian Christmas state that their son Joshua now 13, was bullied by another student while the boys attended both High Hills Elementary School and Hillcrest Middle School. Named in the lawsuit are the bus driver and the vice principal of Hillcrest. The lawsuit states that Joshua suffers from a condition called Benign Essential Tremor Syndrome in which his hands tremor. He is also easily frightened and has difficulty dealing with stressful situations.

The lawsuit states that his condition is one of the reasons Joshua is continually bullied. Tina Christmas is administrative assistant to 3rd Circuit Court Judge Jeffrey Young, while his father Brian is a Sumter Police Department detective and fire department captain.

The lawsuit claims the boy was initially attacked in 2006 on a bus by a bully who bit, strangled, bruised, and kicked the child, which lead to him bleeding. Joshua did not fight back because he did not want to get in trouble. The boy faced suspension from the bus but continued to threaten Joshua and his mother’s life. Then, Tina Christmas contacted police who involved the state department of Juvenile Justice. The boy was forced to write an apology and Joshua was given a one year restraining order against the bully.

The boy moved out of the area but transferred back for the 2009 to 2010 school year. This caused the continuation of the bullying and the boy encouraging others to act out against Joshua.

Tina Christmas contacted to the school and spoke to the vice principal. According to the lawsuit, the child was threatened, frightened and bullied. According to the lawsuit, vice principal Richburg stated, “I would take a child home myself before putting him on the bus afraid.” The parent asked that she be contacted if he was afraid to ride the bus home.

On April 16th, the boy threatened Joshua throughout the day and stated he would beat him up on the bus. Joshua went to the principal and asked to call his mother. Joshua’s request was denied even after the student begged not to be put on the bus. He was taken to the bus by the vice principal and the bus driver was alerted to the situation. The boy punched Joshua in the face on the bus, and Joshua fought back. The bus driver called police but refused to stop the fight and told other children on the bus to “let them fight.”

Police were not told about threats against Joshua and both boys were removed, handcuffed and placed in patrol cars. School officials did not notify the parents but the Christmas’s learned of the arrest from other students.

The lawsuit alleges that Joshua was traumatized by the events and was physically ill due to the situation. The following school year, Joshua was in two classes with the bully, which continued his suffering including vomiting and headaches. The parents believe that the school is negligent in protecting their son against the bully.

In February and March we posted about the webcam spying lawsuits filed against the Lower Merion (PA) School District. In an effort to move on with the business of education, the school district settled the lawsuits for $610,000.

Blake Robbins, filed a lawsuit in February claiming that the school district used then 15, charged in an explosive civil-rights lawsuit filed in February that the district used its remote tracking technology to spy on him inside his home. Evidence uncovered in the case showed that he was photographed 400 times, sometimes as he slept.

A second student, Jalil Hassan also filed suit.

Federal prosecutors investigated whether the district broke any criminal wiretap laws, but declined to bring any charges.

The terms of the settlement require $175,000 to be placed in a trust for Robbins and $10,000 for the second student Hassan. Additionally, their lawyer will get $425,000 for his work on the case.

The district's insurance carrier, Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Company has agreed to pay $1.2 million on behalf of the district toward legal and settlement costs.

The district is no longer using the remote tracking program on the 2300 laptops issued to students.

From Portland, Oregon comes a news story in which a conversation between a student teacher and a fourth grader in his class at Sexton Mountain elementary school, lead to the teacher’s dismissal. The school, in Beaverton School District, says that they do not have any anti gay discrimination occurring in the school.

The incident surrounds student teacher Seth Stambaugh. In a conversation with a fourth grade student, the student teacher was asked about his marital status by the child to which he allegedly replied that it would be illegal for him to get married because if he would, he would choose to marry a man. The student also asked if the student teacher hung out with guys, to which he answered yes. This is an accurate account according to Stambaugh’s attorney.

The student teacher is in the Master of Education program being taught through Lewis and Clark College. He has been student teaching as part of his practicum to getting his degree since the beginning of the school year. Two complaints were filed against the student teacher after the incident occurred.

In a complaint, a father of a student allegedly complained he did not believe the student teacher was dressing appropriately. The teacher was wearing pressed slacks, an oxford style shirt and a cardigan that belonged to his grandfather. That complaint was dismissed by the school itself.

On September 15th, the school district contacted Lewis and Clark to alert them that the student teacher would not be able to return to the school. The student teacher was told nothing more than that his comments were inappropriate. There is no dispute in regards to the facts in the case, but rather if this is an acceptable dismissal.

According to the school district’s spokesperson, Maureen Wheeler, the school district honors diversity and that includes sexual orientation. Although she would not speak about the case in particular, she noted that it was a fourth grader who was 9 years old that the incident revolved around. She also said that this student teacher was just one of some 250 to 350 student teachers who come into the district each year to fulfill this educational requirement.

According to Lewis and Clark, administrators did not follow the usual academic protocols in this case. Problems and “bad fits” between student teachers and districts are common, according to Lewis and Clark. Usually before a move is made, the student teacher, district and college officials discuss what occurred but that did not happen in this case. In this case, the only conversation occurred on Sept 13th, in the evening, with the principal from Sexton Mountain, followed by a series of emails and voicemails the next day. On the 15th, a voicemail stated that the student teacher was no longer allowed back.

According to Stambaugh’s attorney, the sudden change placed the student teacher in jeopardy in regards to his education and career. The student teacher was moved to another school district to complete his practicum.

In a previous post (HERE) we told of a Scranton, PA teenage girl who was suing her school, school district, the county, prosecutors and a detective for illegally searching her cell phone. The search turned up intimate photos of the teen which had never been transmitted to anyone else, or any other cell phone.

The school district has settled the lawsuit without admitting any wrongdoing for $33,000. There is still an active lawsuit against the Wyoming County District Attorney’s Office, which so far has not commented on the suit.

The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the district attorney could not pursue felony charges against the teenage girl for "sexting".

In a statement released by the Pennsylvania ACLU the teen said "I hope this settlement will lead school officials in the future to consider whether they have valid grounds to search students' private text messages, emails and photos."

The big question remains unanswered. How far can educators go when it comes to fulfilling their obligation to keep sexually explicit images, audio and text from reaching the eyes and ears of minors on school grounds?

Since the case didn’t make it to a federal jury, school districts around the country have a challenge in creating a standard cell phone search or seizure policy that will be acceptable to the courts and privacy groups.

The ACLU recommends that districts adopt cell phone policies that permit educators to seize devices if they disrupt the learning process, but to not search them without express consent from the student or their legal guardian.

In a lawsuit filed in California federal court, the American Civil Liberties Union states that the students are being charged fees that are a violation of the state's constitutional guarantee to free public education. The class action lawsuit is not just from one school, but based on numerous schools throughout the state, including the Temecula Valley Unified School District.

The suit alleges that paying for books, extracurricular activities, uniforms and other fees is not allowed under the state's laws.

In a recent press conference, Mark Rosenbaum who is the chief counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union in Southern California said that some 50 districts within the region have some type of illegal fees mentioned on the school's website, but it is likely that more charge these fees. He stated, "There does not exist in California a true system of free public schools." He continued, "Instead what we have are pay to learn schools."

The spokesperson for Governor Schwarzenegger states that the administration is reviewing the lawsuit to determine if the fees violate a free education within the state. The spokesperson for the Department of Education in the state did not offer a comment about the lawsuit.

In San Diego, a school district rescinded the fees it charged students after the ACLU sent a letter to the school district claiming that the fees were illegally imposed on students.

In the Temecula district, the high school is charged with requiring students to pay fees to take an Advanced Placement exam if the student is enrolled in such a problem. These fees amount to $86 per test. The assistant superintendent states that there is an informal contract that the ACLU is referring to, which is designed to educate students on the demands of such classes, and that the agreement may need to be reworded.

The state's guidelines do allow for some fees, and principals are supposed to follow these guidelines, but the ACLU states that some of these fees may be pushing the limits.

A school district in West Virginia has made the decision to remove all swing sets from school playgrounds. The removal of the playgrounds from all Cabell County elementary schools is the result of a lawsuit in which the district was forced to pay a $20,000 settlement. It was the second lawsuit for the district this year over swing set injuries. The other lawsuit is still pending.

According to the school's safety manager, Tim Stewart, the removal of the swings comes after a child broke his arm after having jumped out of a swing, like "Superman."

The schools are removing the swings to reduce liability. Because of recent changes to national safety standards, it has become difficult for schools to defend against such liability claims.
These newer standards now require a rubber based padding to be added to the bottom of the swing and play area. The school district only had mulch, the previously accepted material, in place. The cost of investing in the padding is too high for the school district, at $7500 per swing set.

Some are concerned that parks in the area will also be pulling up the posts due to the inability to meet these harsher requirements in place.

The school district did say it plans to keep the monkey bars in place, as it can meet with the safety requirements for that play set.

Many school districts across the country are wrestling with the same issue. Even if the rubber based padding is installed there is no guarantee that injuries or lawsuits will stop. Some school districts made this tough choice years ago.

One such example is in Nevada, where the Clark County School District started removing swing sets from elementary schools in 1995.

At Oneida Middle School in Schenectady, New York, a student's rosary was labeled as gang related beads. The item was banned from the student's use. After complaints, the school dropped the ban, but a civil rights lawsuit filed against school officials rages on. The lawsuit continues because the school officials are accused of retaliating against the student for complaining about the ban.

The lawsuit was brought on by the American Center for Law and Justice. The student involved in Raymond Hoisier. The policy change, the American Center for Law and Justice says, is a victory for religious freedom. The policy, the organization stated, was discriminatory against the student's constitutional right of free speech and the free exercise of religion.

The student wore the rosary to school to express his faith and to honor the memories of an uncle and brother who died with the rosary in hand. The lawsuit states that the student is not part of any criminal gang and does not use the rosary as a way of promoting any gang related activities or belongings. The student's lawsuit states that the student did not cause any disruption to the school environment by wearing the rosary.

The lawsuit remains in effect because, allegedly, the school dean came up to the student when the student returned to school and ordered the student to detention. According to the lawsuit, the dean said, "If you want to play the insubordinate game, we can play, too." The school is also charged with writing the child up numerous times following the period after the student filed the complaint than it had in the year prior. The lawsuit claims that the school is trying to portray the student as a troublemaker.

The judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Kahn stated that the student was allowed to continue wearing the rosary until the issue was resolved.

The organization also claims that the policy has come into question in other instances as well, including one incident in which the school required a 12 year old girl to remove the red, white and blue beaded necklace she wore as a way to support her family members serving in Iraq. The school, at that time, banished the necklace. That case was settled out of court.

In US District Court, a judge ruled against McSwain Union Elementary School in Merced, CA. The lawsuit against the school was filed on behalf of Tiffany Amador, by her mother Anna Amador. In 2008 an incident involving the then sixth grader resulted in the school requiring the student to take off a pro life t-shirt. The judge ruled that the school and three officials from the school violated the student's rights, including violations to the First, Fourth and the Fourteenth Amendment.

The case was scheduled to go to trial later this month, but the school settled the claim for $50,000, without admitting any wrong doing in the case.

The T-shirt in the case portrayed several pictures of an unborn fetus in the womb, with the word "Abortion" written in capital letters across the top of the shirt. The first two pictures on the shirt portrayed an unborn child through sonographic images. The final square was black, with the word "gone" under it. The school stated that the t-shirt violated the school's dress code.

According to the lawsuit, the student was required by a staff member to throw away her lunch and immediately report to the main office of the school. Then, according to the lawsuit, another school official grabbed the student by the arm and forcibly took her to another official's office. She was then ordered to remove her t-shirt and to never wear it again.

The Amadors’ attorney stated that the school had done the right thing by avoiding a trial and by allowing the judgment to be entered. According to the attorney, "Student speech at all grade levels is protected by the First Amendment. With few exemptions, such as profanity and lewdness, the Constitution prohibits school officials from picking and choosing what messages they find acceptable."

The school has since revised its dress code. The new code takes effect in the coming school year and it prohibits students from where any clothing with text or graphics, except for small school logos.

Earlier this month a lawsuit was filed in a Florida court in hopes that ban on the the distribution of Bibles currently in place will be lifted. The ban does not allow Bibles to be distributed on public school campuses on Religious Freedom Day, which is January 16 each year. The President of the United States declares it yearly as such.

The Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit litigation and policy organization filed the suit. The group states that the district school board of Collier County allowed a group called the World Changers to distribute the Bibles each year, during off school hours on that day. The group says that the school board changed its policy and no longer believes that the Bibles offer any educational benefit to students and therefore should be banned.

The Collier County School District does allow for nonprofit organization to distribute material, however approval for the process must be obtained from the superintendent and from the Community Request Committee first. In January of 2009, World Changers were denied this approval. The group says that they include a disclaimer in the material of school endorsement or sponsorship and no one is forced to accept a Bible.

According to Superintendent Dennis Thompson, the denial of approval was based on a new legal opinion the school district received.

Liberty Counsel states in their lawsuit that the school district is in violation of the group World Changer’s rights to free speech, press and exercise of religion, as well as the equality protection guaranteed under the 1st and 14th amendment. The organization states that the school board does not understand the distinction of a private speech, which they claim is what World Changers is offering, and how private speeches should not be banned.

Louisiana school officials face a lawsuit for handcuffing and shackling a six year old boy. The advocates who filed the charges include the child’s parents, the Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana and the Southern Poverty Law Center. School officials from the Louisiana Recovery School District are accused of handcuffing the child for what the attorneys call, “minor offenses.” Included in the lawsuit are Paul Valias who is the superintendent for the school district and security officers of the Sarah T. Reed Elementary School where the child, now seven, was a student.

According to the director of communications for the school, Ken Jones, the employee involved in the charges was terminated and the child was never arrested. However, attorneys say that the methods of punishing students at the school crossed the line.

According to the lawsuit, an armed school security officer took a six year old to the principal’s office where the child was then handcuffed and shackled to a chair. The student was accused of shoving another child. Two days prior to the incident, which occurred in May of 2010, another officer handcuffed the child for failing to “listen and follow directions.”

The parents of the child said that the principal defended the officer’s actions in the case. The lawsuit states that the principal told the parents that it was part of the school’s policies to handcuff children who were “out of control” until they calm down. The child did not move when the principal told him to and the principal is accused of saying, “if the child failed to follow the rules in the future, he would be handcuffed.”

The parents claim in the lawsuit that the child’s life will never be the same since being handcuffed.

On a related note, HERE is an AP story about a similar lawsuit recently filed on behalf of an eight year old autistic girl who was allegedly handcuffed and arrested at her school last year. This lawsuit claims that the school district and the Sheriff's Department violated the Americans With Disabilities Act.

In Connecticut, a federal judge will rule on whether or not cheerleading is a sport. The lawsuit filed by the Connecticut's Quinnipiac University's volleyball members and its coach, Robin Sparks, further looks at whether schools need to look for other ways to meet the gender equity requirements. The school cut the women's volleyball team last year and instead put in place a competitive cheer squad.

The judge in the case, Judge Stefan Underhill, further needs to determine if the school manipulated the size of its rosters on other teams to ensure that it meet the requirements of Title IX, a federal law established in 1972 that requires all schools to offer equal options for men and women in athletics. The judge has ruled that the lawsuit should be a class action suit for all current and future female athletes at the school. The trial will go to US District Court in Bridgeport for a decision.

The judge issued a temporary injunction last year to stop the school from disbanding the volleyball team until a decision is made. That decision was made because Underhill found that the school was over reporting the number of participant opportunities for females and underreporting those for men.

The case has drawn attention by other women's sports players and coaches. Not only will the case decide if cheerleading is a sport, but also what requirements need to be put in place for counting players. For example, the women's track athletes are counted three times as members of outdoor, indoor and cross country teams.

Upon investigation, it was determined the school's men's baseball and lacrosse teams would drop players before they had to report to the Department of Education. Then, they would reinstate the players after reports were submitted. The opposite was true for the women's softball team, where players were added prior to reporting, knowing those players would not play. The school's officials declined to comment about the lawsuit, but believe that it is in compliance with Title IX.

Students and coaches are unable to comment on the case. However, attorneys for the plaintiffs stated that the lawsuit is significant because it is the first to rule on whether competitive cheer is a sport. The cheer coach believes that cheerleading is a sport. The school says that the cheer squad offers more athletic opportunities for women and costs less. The judge has recognized that cheer does have competitive attributes, though it is not an NCAA recognized sport or emerging sport.

One of the qualifications to be in compliance with Title IX is that there must be a governing body for the sport. Quinnipiac has formed a governing body along with seven other schools called the National Competitive Stunts and Tumbling Association.

The school has said that any improper changes in rosters have stopped and that the percentage of men and women athletes is now in line with the population of the school and in compliance with Title IX.

According to local reports, a Fort Wayne school district may stop sending students to a religious instruction program on school property. A federal lawsuit has triggered the action by the school district. This after the school board president’s statement that it would be irresponsible for the district to defend themselves in a case where the standard has been previously set by prior court rulings.

In 2008, a similar case was brought before the court against Huntington Schools, where the judge ruled against the schools allowing religious activities on the grounds. In that case, the American Civil Liberties Union was issued a preliminary injunction.

The school board president, Mr. Mark GiaQuinta stated that it was both academically irresponsible and fiscally irresponsible to defend against the case. He stated that several board members agree with this decision.

The case involves a third grade student at Haley Elementary School. The parents of that student sued the district in US District Court in Fort Wayne. The parents stated that the school sent their child to an onsite trailer for Bible studies without their consent. The America Civil Liberties Union is helping to represent the child’s parents. The ACLU states that the action is an infringement on the First Amendment rights of the parents. The lawsuit asks that the judge rule the program unconstitutional and to ban it from operations on school property.

The program offered by the Associated Churches of Fort Wayne and Allen County has been established and operational since 1944. Students take part in Bible education during the school day in mobile classrooms. In some situations, 80 percent of the students will take part in the education, including those in the third, fourth and fifth grade.

Should the school board decide to pull the program, the case could be dismissed. However, assurance that such a program will not be on school grounds is necessary for this to happen.

On Cinco de Mayo, students wearing T-shirts with the American flag on them were asked by the assistant principal to remove them. That controversial move made national news and is now headed to federal court. The parents of three of the students attending Live Oak High School filed federal civil rights lawsuits in US District Court in San Jose. Students say they are fighting for their First Amendment Rights.

The students and parents in the case want a judge to rule that the incident that occurred on May 5th was a violation of their First and Fourteenth amendment rights and that the school district's policy on student speech is not clear. The suit also asks for nominal damages and attorney fees to be paid by the school district. Named as defendants in the case are Morgan Hill Unified School District, the principal Nick Boden and assistant principal Miguel Rodriguez.

The incident involved Rodriguez asking the three boys to take off their t-shirts with the American flag on them or to wear them inside out on Cinco de Mayo. He believed wearing them on the holiday was incendiary. The boys thought this was disrespectful and called their parents. The boys are all part Latino. The case quickly hit news media around the country.

The Superintendent of the school district made a statement the next day that the school district does not prohibit or punish students from wearing clothing that is patriotic nor that students should be disciplined for wearing it.

While the actions of the assistant principal seemed wrong, the school does not have a policy that is in violation of the rights of students. First Amendment Coalition in San Rafael executive director Peter Scheer stated that the federal lawsuit may not be valid since the students do not have a "case or controversy" in policy. The school district claims it made a mistake. This means the controversy is now in the past and may not be able to be a part of a federal lawsuit.

A lawsuit was filed on behalf of three girls who were subjected to a strip search. The strip search was conducted at Atlantic High School in Atlantic, Iowa. The lawsuit names the school district and two school officials who were part of the strip search, allegedly. The incident occurred on August 21, 2009.

The three students, Matthew Jacobsen, Lisa Ferguson and Lee Lank were accused, along with two other students, of stealing $100 from a student's purse in the girl's locker room. The lawsuit states that the then assistant principal and athletic director, Paul Croghan ordered the guidance counselor Heather Turpin to strip search a total of five female students. Croghan waited in the adjacent room while the counselor made the girls remove their clothing, one at a time, to various degrees. No money was discovered on them at that time.

After the event occurred, Croghan was placed on administrative leave and in November of 2009, he resigned his position. Turpin is still employed with the school district.

According to one of the girls' attorneys, Edward Noethe, the attorneys had tried to make several attempts with the school district to settle the case out of court, to no avail. He also believes that the circumstances will make it difficult for his client to live in the small community. He did not provide specifics on the types of steps he took to resolve the matter out of court, nor the amount of money the plaintiffs were seeking.

The lawsuit states that the search of the girls "constituted an unreasonable search" under the 14th Amendment. Further, it states that this type of code is part of the Atlantic Community School District's code, which the two officials were following when they performed the search. The lawsuit states that the search was a violation of the US Constitution.

Also, the petition filed in court states that the Constitution of Iowa also includes a provision that does not allow for such unreasonable searches to be conducted and therefore the school was in violation. The Iowa Student Searches Act was violated by the school and further the student's privacy was invaded during the search.

In Scranton, PA, a teenage student is suing the principal of Tunkhannock Area high school, the school district, the county, prosecutors and a detective in the case. The student's phone was searched in a sexting case, which has recently been ruled on by a Federal Appeals Court.

More information on that decision may be found HERE. In a nutshell, the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the district attorney may not pursue felony charges against a teenage girl for "sexting".

According to the lawsuit, the teen, who is now 19 years of age, states that the principal illegally searched her phone during the incident, which occurred in January of 2009. Through the search, the principal found nude photos the student had taken of herself. The principal then took the phone and gave it to prosecutors. In the lawsuit, the student states that the photos were never meant to be shared, but were for herself and perhaps her long term boyfriend.

However, due to the nature of the photos, the school's principal, Gregory Ellsworth turned the phone over to the then district attorney of Wyoming County, George Skumanick Jr. After reviewing the images, Skumanick threatened, the lawsuit states, for the student to take a class on sexual violence or to face charges of child pornography, which would be felony charges.

Within the lawsuit documents the plaintiff states, "I was absolutely horrified and humiliated to learn that school officials, men in the DA's office and police had seen naked pictures of me." The student's name is not being released and in court documents she is named only as N.N.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania is representing her in court and through the lawsuit seeks unspecified damages against numerous individuals who were part of the case. The lawsuit also seeks immediate destruction of all remaining images.

A Staten Island teacher was given a federal court ruling to allow her lawsuit against the New York City Department of Education to continue. The teacher was suspended after allowing students to use sexually explicit language within the classroom as the class discussed HIV/AIDS.

The teacher, Faith Kramer, was expelled for eight months for allowing the students to discuss sex openly in the classroom. Kramer has 26 years of experience in the teaching field. She held tenure at the school. Parents were outraged when they learned that the teacher had allowed such a conversation to take place. The school district required her to sit out eight months of teaching in one of the infamous "rubber rooms", which have since been shut down.

The ruling from Judge Jack Weinstein was lengthy. It contained some 67 pages of text and even included an appendix of the terms that the students used during the classroom discussion. Many of those terms were explicit and were slang terms. The attorneys representing the school stated that those specific terms were not suitable for use within a school setting.

Within his notes regarding his decision to allow the case to go forward, Weinstein stated, "Executing such a task would require great sensitivity, skill, commitment, and not a little courage…Based on the regulation, this teacher ought never to have been removed from the classroom." His statement was in reference to the way that the teacher interacted with the students, in that she treated the students as adults throughout the conversation.

Kramer has filed a $1 million lawsuit against the school district for their decision to suspend her. The funds also cover lost wages and embarrassment.

In Bedford County, Virginia, a Liberty High School senior has filed a lawsuit against school officials claiming that his rights were violated when the school district suspended him for sexting, the process of sending explicit material or words through text messaging.

The student, 18 year old Aaron Merkey, was suspended in March through the end of the school year. According to the school district, he sent a pornographic image to a female student through his cell phone. The lawsuit the student has filed claims that the school district’s punishment was too harsh and that his rights of due process were violated because of the disciplinary actions taken. Eight school board members, the superintendent and the principal are named as defendants in the case.

Merkey’s lawyer has filed a motion for an order to allow the student to return to school, through a preliminary injunction. In addition, he is suing for $100,000 in punitive damages against Liberty High School Principal Mary Brandon and $50,000 in compensatory damages.

Merkey was scheduled to graduate in early June and because of the lawsuit, the student is suffering from “embarrassment, humiliation, emotional anguish and public ridicule” from the suspension, according to the lawsuit. He also is unable to participate in sports activities and prom.

Neither the spokesman for the school or the school's attorney would comment.

However, within the lawsuit, the details of what happened are presented. On February 22nd, the school received a photo from a cell phone showing a woman’s buttocks with a caption under it reading “Have a nice day, A------.” The student forwarded the picture to another student, a female, who complained about it to the school. Merkey was then sent to the principal’s office and there admitted to sending the picture to the female student. Later, the message circulated throughout the school.

On February 24, the principal informed Merkey’s mother that the student was guilty of sending pornography through his cell phone and sexting. At that time, the student was suspended for ten days with a recommendation for suspension for the rest of the school year. According to the lawsuit, the principal told the parents that the suspension was harsh because Merkey sent the message to a female but had it been to just males, “boys would be boys” would be considered.

On March 8th, the superintendent ruled that the suspension should hold for the remainder of the school year. She also ruled that a four week review period would be used to determine if he could return to school after April 2nd. An appeal by the parents did not dissuade the school board from the decision. The school board also ruled that the student would be suspended through the end of the school year without the review that the superintendent had allowed.

The lawsuit says that the student was never made aware of his right to appeal the decision on his own, since he is 18. Further, it states that school district’s harsher punishment was driven by the principal of the school and her recommendation was based on discriminatory standards between the sexes. Additionally the lawsuit contends that Merkey, an honors student and varsity soccer player, was given a harsher punishment than one recently given to a student who brought a handgun to school.

Free speech is the topic of discussion in a Greenwood, Indiana high school where the central Indiana school district is trying to allow a graduation prayer that the senior class voted to be allowed to be said. The problem is that the valedictorian of the school has filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming that the prayer and the vote for it are unconstitutional.

The school district says that if the court blocks the prayer, it could be seen as a violation of free speech. The request from the school district is brought on by the lawsuit filed by class valedictorian Eric Workman. He, along with the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed the lawsuit on Monday. He claims that the prayer is unconstitutional because it is a practice of majority rule.

The case looks to the courts to determine where the fine line is for the expression of religious values in schools. The ACLU states the organization’s reasoning behind overturning the earlier blocking of the prayer goes against Supreme Court precedent in similar cases.

The organization plans to allow for the students to have student led prayer unless a judge orders them not to do so. However, a ruling is scheduled to be made on April 30th. The school says that students voted to allow student led prayer during the graduation in September at an assembly. Students did not have to attend the assembly, nor did they have to vote. The practice of allowing prayer in the school setting changes year to year but in most cases, at least one student is allowed to lead a prayer during the opening remarks, though the prayer is said to be nonsectarian.

Also notable is that the school requires that all who speak during the graduation ceremony submit their speeches in advance for approval and that some do use religious themes within those speeches. The school does not forbid them from doing so.

The school district maintains that allowing student led prayer is not a violation as students are not compelled to participate in it. The school says that anyone not praying will be expected to remain quiet and respectful as is the practice when anyone speaks. The ACLU on the other hand, says that students who are still being subjected to the prayer and will feel compelled to participate, which would make it uncomfortable for Workman and others.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island is suing Family Court Chief Judge Jeremiah S. Jeremiah claiming that the practices of the truancy court program violate the constitutional rights of the public school children and their parents.

The administrators of the program, the class action lawsuit contends, have threatened to arrest students or have them placed in custody if they fail to attend school. The lawsuit says that the administrators of the court engaged in a “pattern and practice of intimidation designed to bully plaintiffs.” The bullying is said to lead to a waiving of the constitutional rights of those involved.

The plaintiffs in the case are nine teenagers who are identified through the lawsuit by pseudonyms and their parents or guardians. The students have special education needs, chronic medical conditions or family caretaking obligations. The lawsuit says that these special circumstances resulted in the student’s missing school, being tardy or being unable to maintain schoolwork requirements in class. It also says these conditions also lead to the students to be unable to behave in school.

These abuses are alleged to have occurred in five school districts in the state, including Providence, North Providence, Coventry, Cumberland and Woonsocket. More than 700 students attend schools in this area in the past two years.

Of those filing the lawsuit is a student from a middle school who suffers from sickle cell anemia and who has an education plan that specifically says the student should not be punished for missing school. In this case, the mother was ordered to appear in Family Court because she failed to appear in the truancy court because she was hospitalized. The mother appeared in the court but without the child who was home ill. The court, under Judge Jeremiah, issued an arrest warrant for the child then told the mother it would vacate the arrest warrant if the child was brought in to school by noon that day. The mother took the child to school and two hours later, he complained of chest pains and had to be rushed to the hospital by ambulance.

Some plaintiffs were under the age of 12 when they were labeled as being wayward or truant students. One mother was ordered to leave her night job early to ensure that her child made it to school by 7 am. The woman lost pay because of this decision and eventually lost her job, though it is not known if the change in schedules played a role in this. Another mother was ordered by the school to bring an ill child to school or he would be arrested.

In another instance, a child with Tourette’s syndrome and ADHD who struggled to attend school and often had behavior problems in class was told by the magistrate that he “had no interest whatsoever” in the child’s behavior or health concerns, but only that the student failed to come to school and fell behind in studies.

The Truancy Court program was created by Judge Jeremiah in 1999 and it was designed to help those students who are labeled as at risk to stay in school. These courts operate in school offices and school libraries and are part of the Family Court process. Attorneys are appointed as court magistrates to administer such hearings. These types of courts are present in 150 schools throughout the state and have no written transcripts of what occurs in each of the hearings. That is a violation of due process rights to the plaintiffs, the class action lawsuit claims.

The court requires parents to sign documentation that “waive their rights” to legal representation in a Family Court situation. Weekly truancy court hearings may be required if the magistrate issues them.

A federal judge ruled late last month that the school board from Itawamba County, Mississippi violated a lesbian student’s rights when it canceled the prom because the student challenged a ban at the prom of same sex couples. However, the federal judge did not order the district to reinstate the prom.

Judge Glen Davidson from US District Court did not reinstate the prom because a private prom that some parents are planning will provide the student with the same experience. The late date of the April 2nd prom made it difficult for the judge to require its reinstatement saying it would be too much of an inconvenience for all involved.

The case began when Constance McMillen requested to bring her girlfriend who is a sophomore at the same school, to the dance and she wanted to wear a tuxedo to the event. McMillen, 18, contacted the American Civil Liberties union to sue the school district to allow the same sex couple access to the prom.

Davidson stated a trial would be set for a later date but did not set a date for it. The parents of students at the school are hosting a private prom on the same day the school prom was to take place. All junior and senior students are able to attend, though there was not specific information about whether or not gay students would be allowed to attend. Another prom is being sponsored by the Mississippi Safe Schools Coalition, which is an advocacy group for same sex couples.

The court case furthers the First Amendment rights of same sex couples within the school setting. Kristy Bennett, who is the legal director for the ACL, is preparing the case for trial and plans to ask the judge to list the board’s actions as unconstitutional. They are hoping to be awarded damages plus court costs.

The school board says it canceled the prom because they did not believe the prom could be successful at protecting the safety of students. The school is in a rural northern Mississippi community and has some 715 students in the high school.

Earlier this week Jacob, an openly gay teenager (identified in court documents as “J.L.”) settled his lawsuit against the Mohawk Central School District in upstate New York. The lawsuit was filed last summer claiming the school district did nothing to stop the bullying against Jacob which included throwing him down a flight of stairs.

Under the terms of the settlement filed in federal court, the district agrees to implement changes including additional staff training, to protect students from harassment. The district is also required to report its progress to the American Civil Liberties Union and federal justice officials.

The settlement also calls for the district to pay $50,000 to Jacob's family and to reimburse them for counseling services. The district did not admit to any wrongdoing under the settlement.

Mohawk Central School District superintendent Joyce Caputo said in a prepared statement that district staff would never knowingly discriminate or tolerate bullying and remain committed to fostering a culture of tolerance and respect. "We recognize there is always room to learn and improve - and we intend to do just that," she said.

Additional information on Jacob’s lawsuit may be found in our previous blog posts by clicking HERE and HERE.

Last month we wrote a post about a lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania alleging that school laptop computer cameras were being remotely activated while in students’ homes.

The most recent update in the case is that numerous parents in the school districts named in the lawsuit have filed documents in federal court opposing the lawsuit and asking to intervene.

Parents objecting to the lawsuit state that they are angry about the unauthorized use of webcams in students’ homes, but are more concerned about the financial impact of a class action lawsuit. Approximately 500 parents have signed a petition opposing the lawsuit which is seeking class action status.

One parent, Larry Silver, stated "We see no benefit to the school district or to the students if a large damage award is gained by the plaintiffs. We want a positive resolution to this matter. We want them (school districts) to get back to their educational mission."

A class action lawsuit filed last month in federal court (San Francisco) states that the law that stops the University of California from using race as a factor when it comes to admissions of students does not meet the requirements of those who are Latinos, blacks or Native Americans. These groups, the lawsuit claims are underrepresented in the school and are unable to seek redress through the school’s governing board.

The pro affirmative action group By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) brought the lawsuit against the school against Proposition 209. That ballot measure was approved in 1996. The allow prohibits anyone from giving preferences to individuals based on race or gender in any type of employment, education or contracting position.

This law has been challenged before, and the California Supreme Court has held it strong. However, the group believes that the new class action lawsuit is ideally suited for the current times stating that the United States Supreme Court has recently provided two rulings that uphold some school desegregation programs. The lead counsel for the group, Shanta Driver, states that since the law was put into place, the number of Latino and black high school graduation rates and United of California rates have dropped.

According to the complaint, The University's Board of Regents has been unable to set admission policies that include ethnicity and race, as well as gender as factors. The complaint states that this positions parents and students at a disadvantage.

President of the school, Mark Yudof has criticized the law in the past and the university’s legal team is looking into the lawsuit, but would not provide a comment about it.

The lawsuit states that Latino, Native Americans and blacks comprise about 25 percent of the freshmen that are enrolled in UC’s nine undergraduate campuses this year. This number is higher than in 1996. However, these minorities comprise a much larger percentage of the public high school graduates from 1996, from 39 percent in 1996 to 48 percent this year. This shows that the minority students are still sharply underrepresented in the school.

In 1997, a three-judge panel upheld the measure. The measure was originally passed by 56 percent of California voters. California is not the only state with these laws, though. Washington, Michigan and Nebraska currently have similar laws. In the state of Texas and in Florida, the legislatures have since banned similar laws that banned the use of race in school admissions within those states.

According to a claim filed against Lower Merion (suburb of Philadelphia, PA) School District in federal court, the school district used school provided laptop webcams to spy on students in their homes, leaving the families to be potentially caught in compromising positions. The webcams were activated without the students’ or parents’ knowledge.

According to plaintiffs Michael and Holly Robbins, the laptop webcams could have captured students and other members of the family in embarrassing situations, including undressing. After learning of the webcam activations, students such as Tom Halperin, 15, started placing masking tape over the top of the webcam.

Should the allegations be proven, the charges could amount to illegal electronic wiretapping, said Witold J. Walzak, who works for American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, though the union is not involved in the lawsuit. According to Walzak, who is legal director, the school is unable to enter a home electronically, just as police are not able to do so. The lawsuit seeks class action status.

The school spokesman, Doug Young states that the school is committed to the student’s privacy and could not state if the school had the ability to activate the webcams remotely. The school provided each of its 2300 students with the laptops. The city is affluent and prides itself with the technology initiatives it has taken in recent years.

The Robbins family learned of the activation of the webcams after the assistant principal at Harriton High School told the son that school officials believed he engaged in inappropriate behavior at home, though the lawsuit did not specifically state what that behavior was. There is evidence in the school’s use as a photograph taken from the webcam was made available to the student as evidence of his behavior at home. The assistant principal, Lindy Matsko confirmed to the father that the school did have the ability to activate the cameras remotely, alleges the lawsuit.

District officials confirmed that they remotely activated webcams to locate more than 40 missing laptops without notifying students or parents. Lawyers have repeatedly requested all the photographs and screenshots the district obtained.

There is precedence in similar cases, though nothing exactly the same. In 2001, the United States Supreme Court ruled that police could not permeate a home with infrared lights to determine if there were heat lamps in place to grow marijuana. Technology is unable to cross the line of a person’s home, as it violates the individual’s privacy.

In a ruling out of Pembroke Pines, Florida, a student who posted a message on her Facebook page complaining about her teacher was allowed to do so, as she was exercising her freedom of speech. Federal Magistrate Judge Barry Garber ruled that the student’s First Amendment rights allowed the student to post negative comments about her teacher.

"Evans' speech falls under the wide umbrella of protected speech," Garber wrote. "It was an opinion of a student about a teacher, that was published off-campus, did not cause any disruption on-campus, and was not lewd, vulgar, threatening, or advocating illegal or dangerous behavior."

The student, Katherine Evans, has filed a lawsuit against the principal of the school who suspended her. However, most important in the case is that the ruling by the judge sets new precedent in such cases in which the Internet and freedom of speech have yet to be defined. Around the country, courts are still trying to work out how social networking websites such as Facebook and free speech limitations interact with each other.

The Florida ACLU filed the lawsuit on the behalf of Evans. The ACLU states that it hoped that this case would do just what it has; set precedent in free speech laws for the Internet and other forms of communication.

Evans posted a message on the Facebook page staying that the teacher was “the worst teacher I’ve ever met.” However, when other students saw the message, they did not react favorably. Rather, other teachers and students defended the teacher. Evans later removed the message from the page. The principal learned of the message, then suspended Evans from the student’s Advanced Placement classes, and instead placed the student in less prestigious classes. Principal Peter Bayer also suspended the student for three days.

In 2008, Evans filed a lawsuit against the principal in the case in the hopes of having the suspension ruled unconstitutional and to have it removed from her record. As an honor student, she did not want her record tarnished. However, the principal tried to get the case dismissed and asked for immunity in the case.

The ruling by Magistrate Judge Barry Garber declined the motion to toss out the case and said that the principal may be forced to pay damages and attorney's fees if found guilty of violating the student’s rights.

Of particular concern was the fact that it was two months after Evans removed the Facebook message about the teacher that the principal decided to punish the student. The lawsuit is not yet settled and will head back to court.

In a related note, The US Supreme Court previously ruled to uphold a California Law which gives students even more Freedom of Expression rights. You may read our blog post about that case by clicking HERE.

In Dalton, Georgia, the parents of a junior who was enrolled in Murray County High School are suing the school system claiming that the school's inability to protect the child from bullying lead to the child committing suicide. The child committed suicide on Oct 17, 2009. They have filed the suit in federal court this week.

Also named in the lawsuit is the principal of the school, Gina Linder, whom the parents believe did not do enough to protect Tyler Long, who died after what his parents call a "particularly painful week of bullying at the high school." Long had Asperger's syndrome, which is a type of social anxiety disorder within the area of autism. The parents believe that the school's inability to protect the child was a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Vocational Rehabilitation Act.

According to Stan Hawkins, who represents the school district, the case has no merit. In a statement, he states that the school system is not responsible for the child taking his life. Hawkins is one of several attorneys working on behalf of the school system.

A statement released from the parent's law firm, W. Winston Briggs Law Firm states, in part that the school's administrators and employees "exhibited deliberate indifference" towards protecting the child. The statement says that the school and principal knew of the child's disability and did not do anything to protect the child from the bullying. The law firm also states that the principal knew of the bullying. The parents filed the suit in an effort to hold someone accountable for their child's death and to ensure it does not happen to someone else.

Although the case has been filed in federal court, there is likely to be a significant discovery period prior to the case going to trial. The school system has 20 days to respond to the allegations. The lawsuit is seeking punitive damages, including payment for court costs and attorney fees.

The San Francisco school system is in for major changes in the way that students are placed in elementary and middle schools. School officials are now planning to send students to those schools closer to their homes, rather than basing the choice of school on socioeconomic class or home language, something it has used for years.

The Board of Education of the San Francisco Unified School District met to discuss possible options. Staff presented a number of options including those that would use academic performances and the student's home location to determine where the student went to school. Board recommendations are still being submitted and a final vote is scheduled for March 3 on all the options available.

Options include:

Parent Selection
One of the options presented is to allow parents to select the school that the child attends, up until the school is full. At that time, all names of remaining students would be placed in a lottery system to determine which school the child will attend. However, the difference here is that the lottery would also take into consideration academic performance of the student to get an aggregate of low to high performing students in each school. In addition, such a lottery system would also factor in the location of the student's home.

Closest to Home
Another option is to simply send the children to the school that is closest to their home. Parents could still make a choice in which school to send their child, but they would be allowed to choose other schools outside of their closest school only if there was availability at that school. This makes the school assignment far more predictable.

Racial Diversity
The goal of the school board, however, is to create more racial diversity within their schools. Neither of the thus far proposed options offers any type of benefit to racial diversity. The school officials are hoping to find another solution that will give them more ability to reduce the number of racially isolated schools in the community.

Complexity
The Parent Advisory Council and Parents for Public Schools both came together to talk about the school assignment system. These groups will not support any system that takes the parent’s right to choose a school. The group believes that if the school district ensured that all schools offered the same benefits that people would not care as much about their child's assignments.

A history of the San Francisco Unified School District's school assignment system may be found by clicking on the following link:

The United States Justice Department has intervened in the civil case between a former student and his school. The school, Gregory B Jarvis Junior Senior High School, part of the Mohawk Central School District, is accused of failing to stop students and teachers from bullying a 14 year old, openly gay student named Jacob. The claims are that the bullying centered around the child's sexual orientation. See previous post HERE.

The student was often the subject of verbal and physical harassment, the lawsuit states, because he was openly gay. In 2009, the student began to dye his hair and wear eye makeup, which intensified the bullying to the point of being pushed down the stairs. The parents of the student claim that the school did nothing to stop the bullying.

However, the fact that the Justice Department is involved in the case signals that there may be a broader interpretation of the federal law that prohibits gender discrimination, which in this case is being applied to the gay male. The New York Civil Liberties Union attorney states that this involvement shows a major shift under the Obama Administration.

The basis for joining the lawsuit, the government says, is Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case is being heard in US District Court in the Northern District of New York. The teen's attorney states that the case is a fight for basic human rights afforded under the US Constitution. It commends the Justice Department for its involvement in the case.

The lawsuit seeks undisclosed monetary damages. With the joining of the Justice Department, this helps provide district wide relief for all district students in the future. The assistant attorney general in Washington authorized the involvement of the Justice Department by stating that it was a matter of general public importance.

The student is no longer in the Mohawk district but attends school in a neighboring district. The school district claims it is close to a settlement with the student, but further comments were not available. The Justice Department has interviewed numerous Mohawk school officials including Superintendent Joyce Caputo.

In a move that has already stirred up tremendous controversy, Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons has released his plans for reforming Nevada's Public Education System. Some have even called it an attempt to eliminate Teachers' Unions.

Here is the press release:

For Immediate Release: January 6, 2010

GIBBONS EDUCATION REFORM PROPOSAL

Governor Gibbons is firmly committed to improving K-12 education in Nevada. Improvement will require new ideas and fresh resolve to replace blind allegiance to ineffectual and wasteful notions that have demonstrated no substantive gains in academic performance for the last 20 years.

Class size reduction was added to the Nevada Revised Statutes in 1989. According to the Nevada Department of Education, 613 schools served K-12 students during Fiscal Year 2009. Despite 20 years funding class size reduction, the Department recently announced 142 public schools in Nevada qualify as low-performing for the purposes of receiving federal grants for the “worst” schools in the nation. That means 23 percent of our public schools are not adequately addressing the educational needs of their students.

It’s time to stop whining that education in Nevada doesn’t work because of lack of funding. We need to quit throwing money at programs which have not accomplished their stated purposes despite two decades of funding. There are many studies which debate the issue of class size in primary grades, as many pro as con. Utah has one of the lowest per student expenditures in the nation and the highest student per teacher ratio. Utah students consistently achieve above average levels. Washington, D.C. has the lowest student per teacher ratio and the highest per student expenditures, and yet they consistently rank in the bottom for student achievement. If class size reduction is the answer for improving K-12 in Nevada, why haven’t student test scores improved dramatically in the last 20 years?

In order to improve Nevada schools for our students, we need to implement true change - real change. We need to get parents and communities involved in their local schools, and in charge of their children’s education. We need to empower local school boards to make decisions which are right for the children in their community. Local school boards are ultimately responsible to parents and voters in their community. Parents have the most vested interest in the outcome of their children’s education.

The cookie cutter approach has not worked in K-12 education. Not all schools need class size reduction programs. Not all schools need full-day kindergarten. School districts must be empowered to choose the right programs for the students in each of their local schools. Parents must be afforded the ability to choose and guide the education which works for their children.

The current fiscal crisis facing Nevada mandates that Governor Gibbons buck the status quo. If 23 percent of Nevada schools are categorized as underachieving, we need to rethink how we deliver public education in Nevada. We need to make better use of existing resources, and give local school districts the flexibility to use funding to deliver the right programs to the right kids to achieve the best results.

Governor Gibbons will call a special session of the Nevada Legislature to address the fiscal crisis facing the state of Nevada. In this session, Governor Gibbons will introduce a K-12 education reform package which will not only save Nevada taxpayer dollars, but will better utilize existing taxpayer support for schools by empowering local school districts to govern and direct how education is delivered.

The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is being sued by the union that represents teachers within that school system. The lawsuit, filed on December 28, 2009 claims that the school district failed to comply with state requirements before converting a school to a charter campus.

According to teachers, the California Education Code requires the approval of a majority of permanent teachers before schools can be turned into charter schools. In a news conference held at Garfield High School, the teachers claimed that schools like Garfield and Esteban Torres High School fall into this category.

The lawsuit specifically wants the LAUSD to comply with the Education Code, and hopes a court order will force this to happen.

The plaintiffs in the case are UTLA, and LAUSD teachers from Garfield High School, 28th Street Elementary School, Foshay Learning Center and Pio Pico Span School.

While Esteban Torres High School (charter) should relieve some of the overcrowding from the nearby (non charter) Garfield High School, LAUSD’s position is that a vote of the teachers was not required since Esteban Torres High School is a brand new school, and not a conversion of an existing school.

The two high schools, Garfield and Torres are part of the 36 new and existing schools in the Public School Choice Resolution passed by the Board of Education for the 2010 and 2011 school year. This plan allows for operations of the school to be put out to bid by third parties. The goal of the program is to help provide options for the operation of schools considered low performing campuses. Monica Garcia, who is the president of the LAUSD Board of Education, says that no schools will automatically be converted to charters as a result of the program.

This lawsuit is expected to be just the first in a series that will be filed by the UTLA in opposition to the LAUSD's plans to reform. It is also important to note that charter schools are not required to hire union teachers.

A teacher from Dayton found not guilty of charges of having sex with a 16-year-old student is now suing the prosecutor who brought the charges. The teacher, Nicole Howell, and her attorney, Eric Deters, filed the claim in U.S. District Court against Rob Sanders, Kenton Commonwealth's attorney. Sanders released a statement saying that the lawsuit was baseless and without merit.

Sanders commented that he was simply another high profile person to be sued by Deters, a reference to the Deters suits against the New England Patriots and Chad Ochocinco. In addition, he commented on Deters radio career saying Deters was "a publicity seeking radio personality with a law license."

Under law, a prosecutor cannot be sued as they have immunity. However, Deters claims that the actions prior to the charges being filed are not included in that immunity. Although Sanders says that a judge determined there was probable cause to arrest Howell, Deters argues that "when a prosecutor violated the public trust, those destroyed in the wake of the abuse of power deserve their remedy."

In the state of Kentucky, only a judge can issue an arrest warrant. Kenton Circuit Judge Gregory Bartlett determined there was probable cause and sent the case on to the grand jury, where 12 members found that there was sufficient evidence to send the case on further, to the jury.

It took juries only 70 minutes to find Howell not guilty of first degree sexual abuse. Howell says she is suing the attorney because she doesn't want someone else to face the same level of wrongful prosecution. She claims her reputation and her teaching career are over due to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims that Howell's previous attorney, Patrick Moeves, was told by Sanders that he did not care about the privately administered polygraph test that Howell passed. He wanted her arrested. Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Stephanie Kastner made statements to Moeves that she did not want any part of the case, however had to act as Sanders requested. Moreover, it claims that Sanders knew numerous facts that would dispute the minor’s claims. These facts include the polygraph test passage, the minor being unable to identify a tattoo on Howell's back, rumors about the incident at school, and that the minor denied the rumors first before going forward.

Sanders, however, says that the minor did describe the layout of Howells apartment and could describe details of that apartment.

Interestingly, Howell's case was the first prosecuted under a more-stringent state law that makes it a felony for a person in authority to have even consensual sexual relations with someone under 18. In all other instances in Kentucky, the age of consent is considered to be 16.

A recent Associated Press article reveals that every lawsuit filed or threatened under a specific California law can trace back to two lawyers who worked together in the writing of that statute. The statute is in regards to electing more minorities to office. So far, there have been about $4.3 million in settlements made under this law.

Under this law, lawyers are able to sue and win judgments easier in cases from claims that minorities were shut out of local elections. In addition, the lawsuit shields attorneys from any type of liability if the claims are tossed out of court.

Seattle law professor Joaquin Avila drafted the law. Robert Rubin, a legal director for the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights offered advice for the drafting. Both, along with other attorneys working alongside these two, have been able to bill local governments more than $4.3 million in three cases that have settled. There are two additional lawsuits pending. More so, dozens of additional cities and school boards received warning that they too could be sued under the California Voting Rights Act of 2002. Each of these cases has been initiated by Rubin's committee or by Avila.

Although it may seem unjust, there is nothing illegal occurring when an attorney profits from a law they helped to author and state lawmakers approved. What is unique in this situation is that after seven years, related legal efforts continue to be extremely narrow in focus. Avila testified in 2002 that he expected other attorneys would take on cases due to these favorable incentives placed into the law.

According to Avila and Rubin, their roles should not overshadow the importance of these cases, as they work to end injustice at the polls. The number of minority officeholders was on the rise prior to the law being in place, and these two claim the lawyers are using the statute to shake down local governments.

Under the law, state courts may create smaller election districts that favor minority candidates. This was necessary, they claim, because the more commonly used "at large" elections allowed candidates to run across the entire district. Avila says this method leads to discrimination since the majority group will win out.

According to several communities in California, there are no complaints about voter discrimination until these attorneys stepped forward. Critics say the law is flawed. They believe that even when there is no discrimination, cash strapped communities are nearly forced to settle the lawsuit.

Many believe that the law and the settlements do nothing to improve the discrimination. Avila, who charges $725 an hour for services, would not disclose his earnings from the lawsuit. Rubin earns $700 an hour. In some school districts, the cost of such settlements is resulting in the inability of schools to provide textbooks to students.

With the ever-changing rules on being equal, questions are arising questioning whether it is appropriate for boys to wear girls clothing. Most schools have dress codes, such as girls having a proper length skirt. However, what if a boy was wearing the skirt, if it was the proper length, could he?

Cross-dressing teens are testing the boundaries around the country. For example, in Houston, a senior was sent home because his hair violated the length rules, which stated that the hair could be no longer than the bottom of a regular shirt collar. In Cobb County, Georgia, a school sent a boy home because he wore makeup, wigs and skinny jeans. Another case occurred in August in Mississippi, in which a senior’s photo was banned from the yearbook because she was wearing a tuxedo.

This is not the story everywhere, though. For example, in a Tucson high school, a freshmen girl who identifies as a male was nominated as the homecoming prince. A gay male student in Los Angeles was crowned prom queen.

Schools and the public are changing viewpoints on these types of scenarios. In many cases, the adults become the police of the dress code, and follow cultural trends. In some cases, younger generations are simply more willing to accept such changes.

Schools regularly ban things that may be gang or sex related, or promotes drug use. However, when schools try to put in place codes that limit expression of sexual orientation of gender variance, the schools are forced to consider antidiscrimination policies.

Schools will eventually need to take these matters head on with more than 4000 gay and straight alliance clubs in high schools around the country. Even elementary schools are seeing these topics come up. In some high schools, educators are stating that schools should not be the public stage for working out private identity issues. Rather, high schools are supposed to be places for academic and social training. Administrators often rely on the dress code to help keep structure in the day. Cross dressing students cause disruptions, which is counterproductive to the instructional day.

In other schools, such as those in Pima County, Arizona where anti discrimination policies have been put in place, it is not uncommon to see boys wearing makeup and girl clothing, nor is it uncommon to see girls wearing big t-shirts and basketball shorts.

At the same time, educators have to take into consideration the student’s overall safety. If a child comes to school wearing clothes of another gender, and that child is harassed, it is up to the educators to help protect the student. That is not always easy. Even using the bathroom as a transgender student can be incredibly worrisome. Defining this fine line is something that schools across the country will need to do.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana has filed a lawsuit on behalf of two students who were suspended from athletic activities after their principal found sexually suggestive photos from a slumber party. In the lawsuit, the ACLU claims that Smith Green Community School Corporation and the Churubusco High School Principal, Mr. Austin Couch violated the students' rights by suspending them for out of school activities. The photos were posted to the student's MySpace pages.

According to the lawsuit documentation, the pictures were taken during a slumber party that occurred during the summer months. The students took photos of themselves kissing and licking a novelty lollipop and pictures of themselves wearing lingerie with dollar bills stuck within the clothing. There was no identification with the photos suggesting that the students attended the high school. The lawsuit states that the students were being humorous and that the actions were "irrelevant" to school functions.

After someone accessed, copied and supplied the photos to the principal, the principal suspended the students from all extracurricular activities for the school year. After parents spoke to the principal, the principal agreed to reduce their suspensions if the students attended several counseling sessions and apologized to the athletic board.

Although the school and principal stated they are unable to comment, they did release a statement stating that the pictures "caused a disruption within our athletic teams at the beginning of this year's sessions." The school states the students did not meet extracurricular expectations.

While the parents appealed the ruling, the students attended the counseling sessions so they could participate in fall activities. They also apologized for their behavior in front of the all male athletic board. The ACLU states that this was humiliating and embarrassing.

The ACLU states that this is only one case, out of many similar cases playing out across the country. The organization claims that private moments like these should stay there and out of school administrator's hands.

The school uses a code of conduct that states that the principal "may exclude any student athlete from representing Churubusco High School if his/her conduct in or out of school reflects discredit upon Churubusco High School or the IHSAA or creates a disruptive influence on the discipline, good order, moral or educational environment at Churubusco High School."

The ACLU is hoping to classify the case as a class action suit, since many parents could be part of it. The lawsuit asks for the district to no longer be allowed to punish students for such behaviors and asks that the incident be expunged from the two student's records.

In Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia, the events occurring on September 11th spurred the public high school cheerleaders to focus on the Bible. They constructed catchy banners with inspirational messages on them and allowed the players to charge through them onto the field before each game. That all ended in September of 2009.

A parent expressed concern that the Biblical phrases may be a breach of the First Amendment rights of church and state separation. The parent was concerned that there may be a lawsuit should the school continue to allow these signs to be placed on the football field. The school board agreed and banned the banners from games.

The barring of the banners did not have a good reception but now, students and fans are filling the stadium with their own banners, filled with Biblical phrases. The town is small, with about 9,600 students in it. The town, including students, took the cause to heart. They call themselves the Warriors for Christ, a play on the school's team name, the Warriors
.
Over the course of the last few months, the group has sold more than 1600 t-shirts bearing a variety of Biblical phrases on them as well as statement such as "You Can't Silence Us" and "Living Faith Outloud."

In federal courts, the rulings have allowed public school students to promote their faith but they may not do so in school-sponsored clubs. Cheerleaders would be considered school sponsored. The woman who brought the attention on the signs, Donna Jackson, says she wanted to protect the school from possible litigation.

The separation of church and state has always been a hazy line, especially in the south where religion is on display that is more prominent. Those in this city are definitely committed. More than 16,000 people have joined a Facebook group favoring the signs to be in use in the game while only 77 have joined a group in favor of the banning.

Although many do favor allowing, the banners to be in use in the game most have stopped pushing the school board to change its mind. Simply, they know that if a lawsuit did come against the board, this already cash strapped county could be in further trouble.

A mother out of Montana's North middle School in Great Falls claims that two teacher's aides severely abused the special needs children in her care. Five families have come forward to make the claims, with one mother describing the abuse of her autistic child as being "waterboarding like torture."

The teacher's aides, Kristina Marie Kallies and Julie Parish have resigned and charged with assault on a minor and endangering the welfare of children. Kallies has not been located by police and Parish has appeared in court and was released on bond. The teachers resigned after the allegations were made, although both teacher's aides claim they are false allegations.

The children involved were special education students in grades seven and eight. The mother, Tiffonie Schilling said that the aide allegedly held the child's head under a water faucet when he dozed off in class. The boy was 14 at the time. She says, "He was having waterboarding like torture done to him on a frequent basis." Another claim is that the teacher made her son, Garrett, "eat his own vomit." The child is not vocal and could not defend himself.

Ms. Schilling is not alone in her allegations. Other parents complained of including one female child being hit in the head with a pan and a male child that was locked in a closet.

A full investigation and independent probe is likely to occur by the state attorney general, although the school has conducted a full investigation and are working with police.

In Oahu, Maui and the Big Island, there are nine families fighting to keep school open for special education and other needs even though the state plans to close them for the day. Two lawsuits are currently pending on behalf of these students in an effort to keep public schools open even though the state had plans to furlough teachers on 17 Fridays over the next few months.

The parents filing the lawsuits want to keep their children in school and around their classmates during these furlough days and hope to have their case heard by Judge David Ezra in the U.S. District Court. They are hoping to get a temporary injunction in place. This lawsuit states that the state has "violated the procedural safeguards" in place through the federal law that protect and prohibit unilateral modifications for any type of special education and related services.

Another lawsuit, filed by attorney Eric A. Seitz is also scheduled to be heard and is on behalf of regular, special education and charter school students in the state. The lawsuits state that Hawaii is breaking the state's obligation to provide 180 days of education, five days per week to Hawaii students. The class action lawsuit, on behalf of all students in the state, states that the furloughs disproportionately affect some racial groups and certain classes specifically.

Although the state's Department of Education claims that they have yet to see the lawsuit, Attorney General Mark Bennett believes the lawsuits are without merit. The state Board of Education has welcomed the lawsuits because their goal is to restore educational days to the students. Through the publicity from such an action, the school board hopes that this will force the governor and the Legislature to find the necessary funding.

The new contract signed by the state Department of Education and the Hawaii State Teachers Association requires there to be 17 furlough days in the current school year and the coming school year. The amount of money these days would save has yet to be noted, however the goal is the cost savings to be put towards the $127 million cut that the department is facing after the state's budget shortfall.

An Indianapolis teacher is accused of giving a child a peanut filled candy bar. The child's mother claims the teacher was trying to make her son sick so that he could not go on a field trip with the class. The boy is eight years old and is autistic. He is mostly nonverbal and experiences swelling by just touching peanuts.

The mother, Anita Young, has filed a lawsuit against the teacher, claiming that the special education teacher, Trinda Barocas, told an aide that the boy was likely to misbehave on the field trip and said that, "maybe he could be sick enough not to attend and we won't have to deal with it" the lawsuit states. The mother claims that the teacher knew how severe the child's allergy was. She says the child was frustrated and angry, and would fight with her about going to school, during the time of alleged abuse. The child is now in a different school and the mother claims the child is doing much better and is happy to be at school.

Officials from the school contacted the mother after aides reported that the teacher has mistreated the boy and another boy. The school is Mary Bryan Elementary School in Indianapolis.

The Department of Education and Marion County prosecutors are investigating the case. Barocas no longer works for the schools and her lawyer did not provide any feedback to the Associated Press regarding the case. The teacher told investigators that the allegations are false and that she did not try to prevent the boy from going on the field trip.

In the lawsuit, there are claims that the teacher kept the boy in a small cubicle, meant to be used for short periods. Specifically, the lawsuit states that the teacher treated the boy as a "caged animal." The teacher is also accused of pinching the boy, standing on his foot and grabbing him by the arm to drag him. The mother wants criminal charges filed.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and says that the teacher and school officials should have known of the abuse and that they failed in their obligation to protect the child. The school district claims that they filed a report with Child Protection Services as soon as they learned of the allegations and that the teacher was on administrative leave with pay three days later. She had told the school a month earlier that she would resign at the end of the school year, for reasons unrelated to the allegations. She was employed with the district since August 2008.

The Indiana Department of Child Services reviewed the complaints and found that the teacher did not want the boy to attend the field trip. The boy did attend and "did many things that he was not allowed to do." The teacher compared the child to an "18 month old" several times.

In addition to these allegations, the teacher is also accused of hitting a nine-year-old girl with Down syndrome on the lips. The teacher claims she tapped the child's lips with two fingers as a physical prompt, not to abuse the child. Another allegation stems back to 2007 when Barocas was working in Franklin Community Schools. A mother claims she saw the teacher force feed her child, slap her and restrain her improperly. The teacher stated, "I did not, will not and would not hurt a child in my care."

The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the case, Barr V. LaFon, without comment. The lawsuit was brought on by a group of high school students in Tennessee who lost a battle with their school administrators who would not allow them to wear t-shirts to school that displayed the Confederate flag. The students' attorney tried to push the case further, though the Supreme Court declined the case.

In 2005, the school put in place a policy that banned images of the Confederate Flag at the school, William Blount High School, located in Maryville. The ban was put in place after heightened racial tension occurred at the school, after an altercation between an African American and a white student occurred. The school had racist graffiti appearing on walls and even one incident in which a noose was drawn next to the Confederate flag.

From August 2005 through March of 2006, the school had 23 incidents of dress code violation in which the Confederate flag was displayed. The students claim that the policy infringes on their rights to express their Southern heritage. The students who filed the lawsuit are Derek Barr, Chris White and Roger Craig White.

The federal judge who first heard the case agreed with the school administration. The administration claims they were simply trying to prevent disruption to the educational process by issuing the policy, especially in light of the racial tension within the school. Alvin Hord, the Director of Blount County Schools, states he did not ban the flag as a racist symbol.

With the U.S. Supreme Court declining to hear the case, this leaves in place the lower court's August 2008 ruling that upholds the school's policy. The appeals court states that the school officials could reasonably forecast that the image of the flag could "substantially and materially disrupt the school environment."

On September 1, 2009, the ACLU filed suit against the Desoto County, Mississippi school district. The ACLU believes that the student had his civil rights violated while he was at school. The reason for this is because of a simple device that many students in high school and junior high school now carry…a cell phone.

The student, Richard, had his phone confiscated while he was at school. The punishment for using the phone while in school carries the penalty of having your parents come to get the phone and having to pay a fine for its return. The problem was that the school district office personnel went too far and started to go through the phone. While going through the phone and checking all of the intimate details that were on the phone the staff stumbled upon something that they felt posed a threat.

The item that the personnel came across was a picture of Richard holding a BB gun and posing with it in his bathroom. The staff felt as though it had bad implications and that they had the need to turn the phone over to the police. The local police force then came to the conclusion that the picture on the phone indicated gang involvement by the honor student. The problem was that neither the police, nor the staff of the school had the right to go through the phone or anything that was on it.

This is what got the ACLU involved. Because not only did the student receive a three day suspension because of the personal picture on his camera, but he ended up being removed from school for the remainder of the year.

The lawsuit is claiming that the student has rights even when in school and has been filed against the principal, football coach, police and the city as well. The hope of this case is to aid in the preservation of the rights of the students to allow for the privacy and the chance of the students to not feel as though they are in a prison environment while they are there.

A school district is trying to move past an incident in which a teacher is accused of burning an image of a cross into the arm of an eighth grade student by settling the lawsuit his family filed. The case, out of Mount Vernon, Ohio, was settled by $121,000 settlement that the family agreed to. The child has not been identified and is identified only as James Doe.

In the agreement with the Mount Vernon school board, the family will be awarded $5,500 and the attorneys for the family would be awarded the rest, some $115,500. The settlement award, which was approved by the school board on Wednesday, August 26th, 2009, prevents the lawsuit from going to trial, which it was scheduled to do in May.

Another lawsuit is still pending against the same teacher, a man named John Freshwater. After an internal investigation was done on Mr. Freshwater, the school district voted to have him removed. The investigation found that he had preached his Christian beliefs to the students and that he had in fact used a high frequency generator to burn the student. The cross burned into the boy lasted for several weeks. Freshwater has in return filed his own lawsuit against the Mount Vernon school district. He claims that the firing was a violation of his free speech rights and his civil rights.

The lawsuit has been highly controversial in the area, and because of this, the family is currently moving out of the Mount Vernon school district, into a new district.

The entire incident has left the school district battling for funds. The ongoing hearing has lasted more than a year and has cost $300,000.

At a board meeting, after Mr. Freshwater was fired, he made a statement saying he never branded or burned any student. More than a dozen teachers have testified on behalf of Freshwater saying they never heard any complaints from his students. Two science teachers also testified saying that the same scientific device was used on students to demonstrate electrical current. Mr. Freshwater's case is still pending.

A 14-year-old gay student who is attending the Gregory B. Jarvis Junior, Senior High School in Herkimer, New York, has worked out an agreement with the school to ensure that administrators provide him with protection. The student has filed a lawsuit against the school district and the administrators for failing to provide him with adequate protection in the past. This is according to the New York Civil Liberties Union.

The lawsuit alleges that the student has been relentlessly abused through verbal and physical abuse, which reached even higher levels when another student brought a knife to school and made a death threat to the student during the final quarter of the school year.

A federal judge is requiring the Mohawk Central School District, to provide emergency relief to the student's need for safety within the school district. The lawsuit is still ongoing, and this measure to provide emergency relief does not in any way stop the pending suit. The lawsuit is seeking punitive damages to be paid by the school district as well as changes to the schools anti harassment policies.

According to the school district, many of the demanded safety changes requested by the student and federal judge were already being provided the following year and were being done so because they were warranted.

The specific safety measures being put in place are not being fully disclosed. There were exceptions to some school policies such as allowing the student to keep his cell phone on him to call home if there was a reason to feel unsafe. There was also a safe room established for the student to use if he felt threatened. The student claims that at least ten times he was forbidden from texting his father and two times from using the safe room when he felt threatened, last year.

The lawsuit charges that the school district failed to provide adequate measures for the student's needs, and that the school district failed to provide proper investigation of the harassment, and failed to discipline students or inform parents of their rights to fight complaints.

A cell phone video depicts the scene of an eleven-year-old autistic boy being struck by a teacher. The child’s mother has filed a lawsuit against the Pittsburgh Public Schools because of the slap, and other allegations of assault on the boy.

The teacher, Lori Davis, was fired from her job by the school district because of the incident at Conroy School, located in Manchester. The video, posted on YouTube.com, is mentioned in the lawsuit. The lawsuit states that the teacher hit the child on the side of the head and then said, “Stop moving your chair back. Move it! And you stay back there! I’ve had it with you!”

One of the claims in the lawsuit is the school’s alleged poor background checking that allowed the teacher to be placed in the school.

The incident was not the first time that the boy was assaulted, according to a teacher’s aide named Andre Burrell. Burrell personally witnessed the teacher both verbally and physically abuse the child on multiple occasions before the March 14th video release in 2008. In addition, the child was also assaulted by a bus aide, who the school district also fired.

The teacher was fired in June of 2008, a full three months after the incident. The state also revoked the teacher’s teaching certificate after the incident was reported to them.

Experts in special education state that this is really the exception to the rule and that most special education teachers are in fact very good with students. Still, this incident could cause parents to step back and wonder what is happening with their own children both in the classroom and on the bus.

A federal judge appointed the monitor who will oversee the Milwaukee Public Schools process of locating and compensating students who were denied special education services between 2000 and 2005. The process requires locating thousands of students, potentially. Elise T. Baach was appointed as independent monitor of the class action lawsuit.

In addition to the appointment, the judge, U.S. Magistrate Judge Aaron Goodstein, also provided documents on when the search for these individuals would be conducted. The schools must track down any student who missed being identified as eligible to receive special education services between that timeframe. Both current and former students would be sought.

The search and compensation is required after a court found that the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, a federal law, was violated. That lawsuit, Jamie S. Vs. Milwaukee Public Schools was ruled on in the same court district.

Not only do the schools need to locate these students but they must also determine what is fair compensatory services to provide to those whose rights were violated. Notices must be posted starting September 1st, 2009 in all public schools in the district and must remain there until Jan 4th, 2010. Anyone who could have had their rights violated is encouraged to sign the class action lawsuit to receive the required compensatory requirements. Students who were suspended during for more than ten days in that period must also be identified, and the schools must determine which students could have qualified.

The original lawsuit claims that the school did not make required payments to allow the special education students to attend private schools for the services that the public schools could not provide. The school district has appealed the ruling.

A lawsuit has been filed by the parents of a 5 year old autistic boy against the Columbia (Illinois) School District for forbidding their son’s service dog from accompanying the boy to classes. A Monroe County judge is expected to rule this week on whether the dog is allowed to attend class with the autistic child. The Monroe County Circuit Court Judge, Dennis Doyle, promised he would make a decision before the first day of class, August 24, 2009.

Five year old Carter Kalbfleisch was only 18 months old when diagnosed with Autism. Carter experiences acute outbursts, often eats inappropriate things like grass and rocks, and runs away from his parents and teachers.

Doctors at Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical Center recommended a specially trained service dog for Carter. The dog and training have cost the family about $10,000.

(Photo of Carter & Corbin courtesy of STLTODAY.COM)

Carter's parents have noticed many positive changes since working with Corbin, a one year old Bouvier. Carter bonded instantly with the dog and now has minimal outbursts while in public. The boy’s parents have even noticed Carter is interacting with people.

School officials did not provide a reason for banning Corbin, but rumors indicated there were concerns of other students with allergies and that there may be students who fear dogs. Carter’s parents acknowledged they would have argued the decision within the school, but a decision would have taken nine months.

Children and adults with disabilities often use service dogs like Corbin and such dogs are becoming increasingly popular with people with Autism. Studies show children and adults who suffer from autism relax and open up more easily when a service dog is near. People with autism are known to have severe emotional and sensory overload, which makes it harder for them to deal with everyday surroundings and social interactions.

United States federal law protects the rights of the disabled to use service dogs. Illinois law permits the use and presence of a service dog in school, which is the law the Kalbfeisches’ are depending on. The disability laws have plenty of gray area. For example, small companies can forbid service animals if they are too disruptive, and school environments are also subject to such interpretation.

In the city of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, a school district is suing a mother. The Bethlehem Area School District has filed suit against Diana Zhou. The school district alleges that the woman "deliberately abused special education laws" in an effort to encourage the school to send her child to a private school. The school states that the child was a "gifted" student.

The lawsuit is rare and was filed under a very specialized portion of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (I.D.E.A.). This federal law allows for school districts to try and recoup costs lost when legal actions had an "improper purpose." The school district is able to try and collect the costs of attorney fees from lawyers and from parents who push these improper claims. In this particular case, the school district has spent more than $100,000 on legal fees on the claims made by the woman.

The lawsuit stems around a series of incidents in which Ms. Zhou requested meetings to develop plans to be used to educate her two children. Each time, she refused the services that the school district offered to her. More than 20 hearings were held over a period of eight years. The hearings were designed to determine if the two children were getting appropriate services. In each of the hearings, the district won.

Under federal law, the school must provide specialized educational resources for children who are gifted, which both of Ms. Zhou's children tested as. The federal laws also provide that parents have the right to special hearings if they cannot agree on what the best plan for the child is. The lawsuit further states that the conflict worsened in the 2008 to 2009 school year. During that time, the lawsuit alleges Ms. Zhou told a mediator that she did not want to come to an agreement with the district regarding one of the child's education plans.

A New York college is being sued because one of its graduate degree students has been unable to find a job. The student, Trina Thompson, states that the school, Monroe College, did not help her with job placement which ultimately has lead to her inability to find a job. She is seeking $70,000 to cover the costs of her tuition from the school and another $2000 as compensation for her stress in the job search.

This is just one example of what is happening around the country where jobs are scarce in many fields. Some college career centers no longer call themselves "job placement" centers or services, but rather offer more training on obtaining a job. Career counseling and linking students with potential employers is as far as they will go.

Is this what students expect when they go to a college in the hopes of finding a job? According to Johns Hopkins University's career office director, Mr. Mark Presnell, students do not expect a guaranteed job found for them by the school. He is quoted by the Baltimore Sun as saying, "I think our students understand that we're here to guide them through the different kinds of career choices they have. What we're here to do is to educate and empower students to build a foundation for the development of their careers."

Other schools state something similar, that their job is not so much to find the job for the student, but to give them an education and then train the student how to market themselves and their skills to employers.

In Jackson, Mississippi, a former high school cheerleader has filed a lawsuit against her former coach as well as the school district in a fight over Facebook. The lawsuit is to the tune of $100 million, which Mandi Jackson and her family filed based on the coach reading the student's personal emails.

Miss Jackson states that the coach got into her Facebook account and read personal messages from her to other students, some of which contained profanity. Because of reading the messages, the coach, Tommie Hill suspended Jackson from cheering. The student was not allowed to cheer at football games or pep rallies.

The student believes she had her personal privacy violated. Her mother, Missy Jackson states that the coach tried to take over her role. She claims it is up to her to police her child's Facebook account and handle disciplinary actions herself. The mother also states that she tried to work with the school for two years to resolve the situation to no avail.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court. Courtesy of WAPT it may be viewed HERE.

Mandi Jackson dreads going back to school as a junior this year because she says that the other girls on the cheerleading squad no longer socialize with her. Although she was once friends with many of them, they no longer talk to her after the incident.

The school, on the other hand, states that all cheerleaders were warned that the coaches would be monitoring their activity online on social networking websites. The school officials have also filed a motion requesting that the case be dismissed.

School achievement tests, required under the country's No Child Left Behind Act, do not have to be provided in any language other than English, a state appeals court ruled. In Coachella Valley, California, where many of the student's are considered English language learners, this has severely limited the school's performance.

Coachella Valley Unified and other school districts alleging that students should be provided with achievement tests in other languages filed a lawsuit. The district is currently under state sanctions and an academic trustee for poor performance on these tests. The attorneys representing the school district state that the school is being treated unjustly since teachers are performing well.

The case appealed a ruling in 2007 by the San Francisco City and County Superior Court. In the case, nine school districts and bilingual education groups came together to sue the state of California over the English only tests. The lawsuit states that the state was failing to meet federal laws, which stipulate the English learners be tested in a method that is considered a "valid and reliable manner."

The school districts claim that even if the child understands the concept, they may be unable to demonstrate the answer since they cannot understand the question being posed to them.

The court's ruling (available HERE) was based on several factors including the court's unwillingness to not second guess the California State Board of Education. In addition, a state proposition that requires the majority of teaching to be done in English also was a factor. The ruling in the case was unanimous. The court stated that it would be confusing to teach in English and then to test in another language.

Federal law states only that reasonable accommodations are necessary to be made to accommodate students. The school districts have yet to determine if they will further pursue the case. They said that they will determine whether or not to move forward once the new administration in Washington D.C. determined how it would proceed with the No Child Left Behind Act.

The Clark County School District in Las Vegas, is now facing a lawsuit in which they are charged with failing to protect a parent from a teacher, one of the school district's employees.

The teacher in question, Ken McFate, has been found to have an extensive history of harassing women and stalking. The claim filed against the school district claims that the school district knew of the problems with McFate but did nothing about it.

In a court of law, attorney Dan O'Brien, Clark County School District Assistant General Counsel, made the statement, "This is a case about a parent who decided to have an affair with a teacher and then it didn't go well." According to Las Vegas Now, he continued with, "She now wants the district to give dating advice to married parents." The statement was seen as surprising.

The judge in the case, Judge Kathleen Delaney, stated that the comment was disturbing and then denied the school board's motion to have the case dismissed.

What Actually Happened?

The lawsuit stems from an incident involving McFate and Andreana Leonard, who was a classroom volunteer at Bilbray Elementary School. During her time working there, she developed a relationship with the teacher. When a fall out between the two occurred, Leonard states she was forced to get a restraining order to keep McFate away from her. In doing so, she learned she was not the first person to do so.

According to records, there have been several people to file restraining orders against McFate, and many of the occurrences happened at the school. Leonard's attorney, Richard Segerbloom made a statement stating that what is truly disturbing is that the school knew about the charges and problems, allegedly, and did nothing about it, nor does the school have a policy on how to deal with such incidents.

Leonard is seeking monetary damages and the requirement of policies to be put in place to protect individuals in circumstances like this. McFate retired in 2008.

A mother may find herself in front of the U.S. Supreme court, fighting for free speech and the separation of church and state. The mother, Donna Kay Busch, must make a decision about the case by August 31st.

The woman has filed a lawsuit against the Marple Newton School District and its officials. The case stems back to 2005 when her child was in Kindergarten. At the time, the children in the class were enjoying an activity called "All About Me Week." Part of the assignment was to have a parent read from the child's favorite book to the class. Busch's son, Wesley, selected the Bible as his favorite book. When Busch went to read from it to the class, she was asked to not do so by the principal, citing the need for separation of church and state.

The case has been ruled on twice. In U.S. District Court in Philadelphia, the court ruled in favor of the school district. In June of 2009, an appeals court upheld the original court's ruling. They called the classroom a nonpublic setting that, in turn, merited unique consideration of the free speech considerations.

In the ruling, Chief Judge Anthony Scirica stated it was necessary to "create the structured environment in which the school imparts basic social, behavioral and academic lessons." In particular, the statement pointed out, with children this young, the speech could be interpreted as promotion of religion.

Busch, on the other hand, believes that by taking away her child's freedom of speech, the school is in violation of the laws of freedom of speech. She will need to make her decision whether or not to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, and further her pursuit of what she call's Wesley's fight.

In addition to revamping school district anti-discrimination policies, Vallejo City USD has agreed to pay student Rochelle Hamilton $25,000. The agreement was made in response to Ms. Hamilton’s complaints, prior to any lawsuit being filed.

Ms. Hamilton was represented in negotiations by ACLU attorney Elizabeth Gill. The complaints allege that teachers verbally harassed then 16 year old Ms Hamilton over her sexual orientation. The teachers then forced Ms. Hamilton to attend a counseling session for gay students. Attorney Gill said the counselor tried to discourage Ms. Hamilton and other students in the session from being gay.

Additionally, according to a letter dated Jan. 17, 2008, from the ACLU to district Superintendent Mary Bull, staff members made comments to Ms. Hamilton including: "Remember, you're a girl, not a boy," and, "You can get HIV/AIDS from being gay and messing with females."

This entire emotional trauma left Ms. Hamilton too depressed to do homework. She would often cut class because she felt like there was no point since her teachers did not care about her getting an education. She ultimately changed high schools.

Ms. Hamilton, her mother and ACLU attorney Gill are looking forward to the school district following through with the agreement. But, if the district defaults on the legally binding agreement, the ACLU will sue, Gill said.

When US citizen Mostafa Tabatabainejad, then a 23 year old senior at UCLA, went to the library in November 2006, he didn’t expect any of the following to take place: He didn’t expect to be asked for his ID by campus police. He didn’t expect campus police to Taser him (allegedly 3 times) for failing to provide his ID. And, he didn’t expect video of the altercation to end up on YouTube.com.

Mostafa Tabatabainejad filed a lawsuit claiming his civil rights had been violated.

Following multiple investigations which included reviews of all YouTube videos capturing the event, the acting chancellor’s police accountability expert found the use of the Taser violated department rules.

UCLA police brought in their own expert who cleared the officers involved of any wrongdoing. Then the UCLA police implemented a ban on the use of a Taser on people presenting purely “passive resistance.”

In a statement, UCLA said they would pay $220,000 to settle the lawsuit. The university also said the settlement would allow Tabatabainejad to “complete his UCLA degree and move forward with his career.” Lastly, the statement said there would be no further comments by Tabatabainejad or the university.

Although not in the statement, this attorney would expect the settlement to also include appropriate retraining for all UCLA campus police related to the use of force and Tasers.

The Los Angeles Unified School District has been ordered to pay some $1.6 million to families of three girls who were molested by a teacher's aide, a man named Ricardo Guevara. The man is now incarcerated and will spend the next 15 years in jail for lewd acts with a child.

What is incredibly difficult to understand is that the jury and the public were never told that this was actually the third set of accusations that were brought against this man. In two other incidents, he was accused of such crimes and yet, due to a lack of evidence, no charges were pressed and even worse, the man was placed back into the classrooms.

The L.A. Times states that over the years, this is a pattern that the school district has had. There have been other instances, other cases, in which sexual misconduct complaints were brought to the attention of the school district in regards to employees. But, the claims were dropped and the individuals ended up in other schools. In one such instance, the new principal did not know of the background of Guevara.

The evidence is striking. In one instance, a school teacher was accused of molesting a 4th grade student in 2001. Prosecutors declined the case and the man was transferred to another school. He repeated the action and in 2004 was sentenced to six years in jail.

In another instance, an elementary teacher was accused of misconduct for insisting that a child sit on his lap and pose for a camera. The case was brought before the police who told the school to handle it administratively and they did by just telling the man to stop. Later, he pleaded no contest to sexual abuse of a child and will spend 16 years in prison for it.

The problem with these cases is that the legal system does not believe there is enough evidence to pursue legal action. More so, the only evidence comes from frightened children who are often too scared to talk. Many believe, though, the schools should err on the side of safety for the child, rather than protecting the teacher.

In Pensacola, Florida, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), has won a case that has been in the courts for several months now. The case was filed on behalf of two students at Pace High School.

The suit was filed against the Santa Rosa County School Board and named former Superintendent of Schools John Rogers and H. Frank Law, Pace High School principal, as defendants. The students claim that the school allowed religious prayer and promoted religion through the activities the school offered, such as offering prayer at school events. They believed this was a violation to their rights under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment under the state's constitution.

The federal judge presiding over this case agreed, and awarded the students a settlement of $1. The judge's ruling stated that the school officials could not promote, endorse or participate in any type of prayer during or in conjunction with any activities for the school. They cannot provide any religious event planning, financing or organizing. They cannot host any school type event at a religious facility if there are other suitable options available. They also can no longer talk about their religious beliefs within the school's classes.

The ACLU worked for two years to try to get a settlement from the school board, and filed suit when they could not reach one. The school must instruct district staff members of the new requirements.

A group of parents and students have sued the Elmbrook School District in Waukesha County Wisconsin to stop the district from holding graduation ceremonies in a Christian church. The school district has hosted the graduations of both Brookfield Central High School and Brookfield East High School in the Elmbrook Church for some time. The group claims, that forcing non-Christians to be in the church is a violation of their constitutional rights. They claim it creates an atmosphere that makes them uncomfortable.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State is helping the parents and students through suing the school district. The group that is suing the district includes one graduating student, several alumni and parents. The school defends their actions to use the church, claiming that the facility is larger and that it is a much more comfortable atmosphere than the other buildings available for such a graduation ceremony in Waukesha County, about ten miles west of Milwaukee.

Originally, the mega-church agreed to cover the large cross that was positioned in the sanctuary. However, it later changed its mind and uncovered it because the church "wants to share its facilities without compromising its identity" as the claim noted. Additionally, those visiting the church for the ceremony also must pass Bibles and Hymnals that are placed in the pews. This creates the uncomfortable situation they are concerned about.

The lawsuit is clear in what it wants to happen. It wants the school district to no longer host this year's or any future year's graduation ceremonies in the mega-church complex. It is also seeking damages for the students and parents named in the case.

The school claims that they do not have an alternative site for the event and that while the church will remove anything that is nonpermanent, it will not move anything that is a permanent fixture within the facility.

In Jersey City, New Jersey, the New Jersey Supreme Court informed a teacher that she could not take action against the school officials who called police on her and sent her for psychiatric evaluations for using the word "kill" in reference to the amount of stress she was under.

The woman, Sopharie Leang, is a Cambodian immigrant who taught English as a second language to students at a public school. She claims that she said her laryngitis on a particular day was brought on by stress and that her doctor told her that, "the amount of stress in my body could have killed some people." But, another teacher, whom Ms. Leang was speaking to in front of a body of 22 students, claims she said, "I'm so stressed out I can kill 22 people."

The school took decisive action, which the Supreme Court ruled was the right step to take. The school district was justified because an "appropriate and decisive response" was required in this case. The laws that define the boundary between teacher's rights and student's protections is a fine line that often needs to be tested, by cases such as this.

When the other teacher, Vladmir Ashworth noticed her behavior and poor appearance, he reported the situation to the school nurse and to the principal. At that time, the teacher was escorted to the nurse’s office to wait for the principal. When the principal returned to the school some time after being notified, Leang became further aggravated. At that time, the principal called the Jersey City Police Department stating that an emotionally disturbed person was at the school.

She was later taken to a hospital where it was determined she was under a lot of anxiety and her blood pressure was elevated, but she did not have any homicidal ideation. The teacher sued the school district and school officials for the situation claiming a list of claims including breach of contract, wrongful or constructive discharge, sexual harassment and several others. The claims were placed in one lawsuit, which was dismissed on judgment due to the lack of evidence in the case.

The case went in front of an appellate court, which restored some of the claims. After much deliberation, it was determined by the Supreme Court of New Jersey that Leang did not have any cause of action to sue the school officials for their actions.

If you are interested in reading the entire 46 page Supreme Court opinion click here.

Two parents found out weeks after the incident that their children were being abused emotionally and potentially physically by another student in their special needs class. The parents, told only of the incident by a classroom aide are furious that the teachers and school officials failed to tell them what actually had happened to their children while in the care of teachers. The events occurred at Plain City Elementary in Utah.

The mothers, Debbie Veldhuizen and Jamie Doak, have filed a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights and have sent notice to the Utah Professional Practices Advisory Commission and the Weber district. Nothing has been done. A lawsuit was dismissed for not being properly filed and they have since stopped pursuing it. They have moved their children out of the school.

But, What Happened?

According to a teacher's aide named Holly Wilson, a third child, not identified, touched Veldhuizen's clothed groin during school, causing him to have an accident. In addition, the same child harassed her son in the bathroom, screaming profanities at the child and threatening to kill him. The eight-year-old boy was so frightened; he was afraid to use the restroom and began having accidents. The other boy, Tucker Doak, does not speak and is about the size of a toddler. The same student choked Tucker and later tried to suffocate him.

The mothers believe that the school officials should have done more for their sons, specifically alerting them of what was happening. However, the school authorities said they did not alert outside authorities because they have to be careful doing so when children act out against other children. They work as a team to handle the situation and ensure it does not happen again. The mothers do not blame the offending child because he too is a special needs child. They do blame the school for the lack of notification and the lack of providing the proper environment.

Throughout the school year, there were four aides. Moreover, for six months of the year, there was no licensed teacher in the classroom due to budget shortfalls.

The American Civil Liberties Union has been called on by a school librarian and two high school students in Tennessee. The students believe that the school's blocking of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (commonly called LGBT) issues is particularly troublesome because it does not allow students to gain information from both sides of issues, as well as limits their rights to obtain needed information.

In Tennessee, some 107 school districts have an Internet filtering software program that stops LGBT content from being displayed on school computers. This software, called Educational Networks of America filters content according to the settings selected by the district.

Because of the filtering, high quality and nationally established websites including the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Human Rights Campaign and the Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gay's websites cannot be accessed.

Enter a school librarian named Karyn Storts Brinks from Fulton High School. She tried to improve the situation and change the rules, to no avail. The problem with the software is that it only allows students to get one side of the story even though the contents are in the public forum now. While it does not allow students to visit these websites, considered legitimate resources, it does allow for students to visit websites encouraging reparative therapy which has been labeled dangerous by the American Medical and Psychiatric Associations.

One student tried to access information for LGBT students on scholarships available. Others have used it to research current debates in the public venue. There is no law, federal or state wide that requires such a block. The state law does require the blocking of material deemed obscene or harmful to minors.

The hope is that with the aid of the American Civil Liberties Union, there will be a solution put in place to aid these students.

In this session of the Supreme Court, there will be several cases heard in the educational field. One of which is based on the English language learners, or ELL, courses available in the state of Arizona. The case, Horne vs. Flores is a disagreement by several groups, often split along political party lines. The case involves the amount of funding for such courses and the legal requirements of the state to provide for such courses.

The Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 states that states need to provide appropriate action to provide for equal education to all students, regardless of their origins and nationalities. Yet, in Arizona, the claim is that there was a lack of funding for English language learners instructional methods. The law states, specifically, that every state must, "take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impeded equal participation by its students in instructional programs."

In 2006, a law passed that increased per pupil ELL funding. In 2007, a judge from the U. S. District stated that the law did not go far enough to provide for the programs in that it only went for providing $444 per pupil in ELL education up from $365 per pupil. Further, the law cut off funding for students who remained in such courses beyond two years. The judge ruled that the state's ELL funding was in violation of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act.

The case gets further complex when the No Child Left Behind Act, a federal act, is taken into account. The state's ELL law requires an offset of funds from the federal government to districts, but runs the risk of reducing the amount that the state can obtain from the No Child Left Behind Act.

A boy named Jarron Draper started his education like any other child, but fell behind as a seven-year-old child. At that age, he was doing poorly and needed the school to provide him with help. Although his teacher recommended that the child be tested to determine what was causing his academic problems, nothing was done. Teachers requested this help in 1995, 1996, and twice in 1997. Throughout this time, the school continued to provide basic education and often isolated the child from functional exercises that could have improved his education.

Then, in 1998, Draper was tested and the test revealed that he was failing because of a specific learning disability. At that time, it was evident he had clear signs of dyslexia but these were not addressed by the school system. He was placed in a restrictive classroom from 1998 through 2003. When he entered high school, he had not improved and in fact was struggling at early elementary levels. How does a boy at the age of 13 have only a third grade education?

Later, he was determined that Draper suffered from a low average range of intelligence, a far upper level compared to that of which he was diagnosed in 1998. This means that he did have the ability to learn and he could have been taught, if the school system would have taken steps to test for the disability and provided appropriate education for him.

Unfortunately, although parents recommended aid several times from the school, it would take the courts to intervene before the boy would be given the help he needed. By the time he was in the 12th grade, he still struggled with elementary level education (although the school had thrown him back into the same classes as other high school kids.) The courts ruled that Draper was not provided an effective education under state law by the Atlanta Independent School System. And, although the school tried to appeal the case, it was determined that the school must give him extensive private aid or pay for a private school.

Up to 20 percent of students drop out because they do not have legal representation to help them fight school failures. Draper did have this, but it is worrisome to think of what would happen to students who do fall through the cracks.

In 2006, Foothill High School graduate Brittany McComb took to the podium to recite her valedictorian speech. During the speech to her Henderson Nevada classmates, she made several comments that administrators state strayed from her preapproved speech. Due to the content of that portion of her speech, Miss McComb believed she was being censored unfairly and that her First Amendment Rights were being violated. And that, took her to court.

In her speech, she made the following statement, "God's love is so great that he gave his only son up to an excruciating death on a cross so his blood would cover all our shortcomings and our relationship with him could be restored." At that point, her microphone was unplugged and the audience was unable to hear the rest of her speech. The video of the commencement has been on YouTube for two years and has since been viewed more than 35,000 times.

McComb learned this month that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals would no longer hear her case. The panel of three judges issued a memo reversing a federal judge decision from 2007 not to grant a district motion to dismiss the case. While they can approve, McComb's attorney did not believe their chances were good. The panel stated that they did not believe the school violated her right to free speech by not allowing the "proselytizing graduation speech" to continue.

Cyperbullying is the act of threatening individuals in some manner through electronic means. Bullying in general is something that many students have faced over their school life and now, it has moved to the Internet. A good example of what is happening is with the website Facebook, a very popular, social network geared towards connected people.

Facebook users can create "hate groups" in which some students are using to mock, harass or otherwise harm users. This has lead to situations in which students are bullying other students not on school grounds, but through the Interent. The problem here is that there is no one group that is considered ultimately responsible for fixing this form of bullying.

The State of California passed Assembly Bill 86, which defines cyberbullying, but some believe it does not go far enough. Should police be involved in the situation, to handle these types of situations? Or, should the school be responsible? In some cases expressing cyberbullying, schools are often unable to monitor children off school grounds and yet try to stop cyberbullying anyway.

Some parents disagree with this. They do not want schools monitoring their children's computers or interacting with children outside of the classroom atmosphere. Parents themselves are often unable to monitor children close enough due to groups like Facebook, which makes it very easy for kids to come together online without their parent's knowing. Take this a step farther and some could blame social groups like Facebook, which does not have stricter requirements. Should the website stop kids from cyberbullying? They often do not realize such groups exist until it is brought to their attention, which rarely happens soon enough.

An example of this happened in California's Palo Alto school where a group of kids created a Facebook group that was called "I Hate Tyler" which was specifically targeted towards a student at Jordan Middle School. Over 100 members joined the group, which was created after the boy posted a video of himself singing on another popular site YouTube.

The question remains. Who is responsible for policing children who participate in cyberbullying?

Parents in St. Augustine, Florida, have filed a lawsuit against Webster Elementary School. The parents are upset about a recent incident in which their third grade children were made to sing a religious themed song. The song was part of the school's end of the year program.

The children began singing the song, "In God We Still Trust" by country group Diamond Rio a month prior to the lawsuit being filed. The group of parents believe that the song interferes with the parent's rights to raise children according to their own beliefs.

When one parent complained about the song, St. John’s County School District Superintendent Dr. Joseph Joyner pulled the song from the program. Hours before the filing of the lawsuit, the entire program was cancelled. Parents filing the suit claim that they are still entitled to damages due to the fact that their children were forced to learn the religious song. They claim that the school should not have provided the children with the song, because they feel the district should bar any religious instruction during school time, which they claim the song represents.

Some of the song's lyrics appear in the image above: (copyright Diamond Rio):

The lawsuit claims that the song's message is that God is part of American history and therefore individuals should fight attempts that try to secularize society.

The attorney for the school board states that singing a song that is like this is different than praying in school. In the past, schools have been allowed to sing religious songs. He claims that just singing a song does not mean that the school is endorsing the religion.

On an average school day in 2007, a high school junior named Eric Mohat decided he would come home and follow the advice given to him by a classmate. He shot himself, committing suicide because of the bullying that tormented him in the months and years prior. His parents have filed a lawsuit against the school.

The school, located in Mentor, Ohio, allegedly knew of the bullying and did little to nothing to stop it, his parents claim. William and Janis Mohat filed the lawsuit against Jacqueline A. Hoynes, Joseph Spiccia (school officials) and Thomas Horvath (a math teacher) who they believe knew that their son was being bullied.

Mr. and Mrs. Mohat state that their son was very gentle and was the type of child to enjoy theater and music. He was tormented by bullies, in particular there were several in his math class, which was taught by Mr. Horvath. The teacher was also a sports coach at the school. These bullies called him various inflammatory names, and the teacher did nothing to stop the behavior. One day, one of the students told Eric to go home and shoot himself. That is just what he did.

The parents are not looking for money in this case but want the school to establish an anti bully program that would stop such bullying from happening. The school needed it, as in the same year as Eric's suicide, three other classmates committed suicide. All of those deaths were brought on by bullying as well.

Corona del Mar High School was recently put in the national spotlight when the school's cancellation of the musical "Rent" was reversed. Things have gotten a bit worse as the Newport Mesa Unified School District is now facing a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union. The lawsuit states that the school allowed a "sexist and homophobic environment" for students on campus.

Corona del Mar High School administrators are at the center of the lawsuit. The lawsuit specifically states that the atmosphere created at the school was hostile to "female, lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender students in general, and has led to despicable threats of violence against one student in particular."

The school district does not believe all claims in the lawsuit and is said to be working on resolving the issues involved.

The lawsuit in part stems from the threats of violence found in a video posted online in which three students from the school were allegedly making slurs towards gays. Another student was allegedly threatened, and left the campus out of fear.

The problems originated when the school pulled an edited version of the rock opera "Rent" from the musical department. The musical portrays gay characters that battle AIDS and do drugs. Originally, the musical was pulled by the principal until the script could be reviewed, after which it was put back on.

The lawsuit states that those students were not punished harshly enough for their actions and therefore the school is being discriminatory. It claims that when students use anti gay slurs in front of teachers, students go unpunished. The ACLU is seeking damages on the behalf of the students, training for students and the schoolteachers and administrators and a statement stating that the school violated the civil rights laws in place.

In a recent ruling on the method used to send children in the Berkeley Unified School District to school, the school system was found not to be discriminating. The American Civil Rights Foundation who believed the method of selecting children for schools was unfair challenged the system.

States have implemented affirmative policies that help to foster diversity within the school systems. Courts are often faced with making decisions on whether these policies have gone too far and in themselves are now discriminatory based on race.

The policy in question was one, which had the goals of achieving social diversity. The school system uses a unique process to determine the location of the child's school. They base this on the neighborhood demographics. The policy in no way considers race, the court found, and therefore is not doing anything illegal by working to promote diversity in the system.

The assignment policy for the school district takes into fact a variety of components. This includes the student's residential neighborhood, the average household income in that neighborhood, the average education level of the adults living there, and the racial composition of the entire neighborhood, but not the student. When the demographics of a neighborhood are in use rather than the student's race itself, there is no case of discrimination against the student nor is the student receiving preferential treatment.

For those of you in school district management, whether or not you are a Sylvester, Oppenheim & Linde client, you will find the court’s opinion very educational. We invite you to read or download it by clicking on the following link: Court of Appeal Opinion A121137.

Where does the fine line of the law stop and the responsibilities of parents begin? Throughout the country, interesting laws are being considered that would greatly affect parents.

One example is in North Dakota where the legislature is reading a vote that would install a $500 fine for parents if their children skipped school. When children continue to skip school, parents can be sent to jail, for up to 30 day and a hefty fine. Another example is in Minnesota. There, it may become illegal to smoke in the car with your child. Doing so is a secondary offense meaning that a ticket would be issued only if you were stopped for another violation first.

Another side of the coin affects employers. In Colorado, a new law under consideration would make it a requirement for all businesses with fifty or more employees to allow parents time off from work to attend parent teacher conferences, interventions, drop out preventions disciplinary issues and other situations in regards to their child's behavior and educational needs. Parents would get three-hour spans of time, up to 18 hour a year, to attend these all-important functions for their children.

Those pushing these laws believe they are essential for protecting children. Others say that the government is overstretching its hand and that parents should be making these decisions themselves. The fine line of legislating good parenting skills is struggling to be defined.

How far should the law go? To what point does the government have responsibility to parent children? More so, are these laws intrusive? These are all questions to carefully consider especially as new laws are discussed and often pushed through the legislature.

Under federal law, children with disabilities receive specific rights. These are defined under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (called IDEA for short). The laws require that each child with special educational requirements receive an Individualized Education Plan, or IEP. A team is assembled including professionals and the parents to work out the child's goals, needs, and to choose a placement in the proper class. This, some parents claim, is not what is happening in the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD).

Students are placed in a lottery there, where a computer will select the proper placement for them. The problem is, this is a general education lottery system, and while the children do have an IEP in place, the parents have no ability to participate in the process of selecting their educational goals and teachers. This is against federal law, some say.

One instance that can help to shed some light on the problem happened recently to a parent who receives her child's information regarding teacher and class placement for their child. They went to see the teacher and classroom to discuss the child's needs. Little did they know when they arrived that the school just learned of the upcoming class and that no teacher had even been hired for it? Parents are allowed to request teacher qualifications and determine if the placement is acceptable for their child. This parent would have to wait until fall to determine this and, even worse, the child would likely remain in the class for a full year, even if there were an ill fit.

While the lottery method is still in use, parents have challenged it in the past. In both instances, the SFUSD lost at the “due process” hearing. If you are interested (especially if you are in school district administration) in reading the California DOE Special Education Hearing Office decisions, we have linked them HERE-1 and HERE-2 for your convenience.

The lottery system may work for standard elementary students, but for those with special education needs, current law illustrates that it falls short.

Steve Rocco, an Orange Unified School District trustee filed suit in 2006 claiming that his first amendment rights were violated when he believes he was wrongfully censured by fellow trustees when he commented on the move of a principal within the district. He also claims that his rights were violated when the cable television channel allegedly edited a videotape message. The case was defeated by the courts and an appeal was shot down.

Citizens are angry for several reasons, not to mention the man's notable behavior during school board meetings. Still, what angers them more so is the local media's handling of the case. They claim that the media fought for Rocco to the point of allowing the rights of Rocco's to be more important than the rights of all the children in the Orange Unified School District, where the incident took place. Their claim stems from the funds used to pay for such lawsuits.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled that the Rocco group now owes Orange Unified District some $37,000. Rocco claims that the money is covered by a bond and as such none of that money will come out of his pocket. In short, he along with other controversial board members are no longer on the hook to pay these costs.

Justice prevailed here. With the Court decision, funds expended on this lawsuit by the school district will NOT be taken from funds used to pay for students’ educational needs.

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court held intact a ruling that said Novato school district officials violated a student's freedom of expression when they confiscated a high school newspaper because of an editorial criticizing immigration. The case is Novato Unified School District vs. Smith, 07-783.

A California appeals court in San Francisco ruled last May, upholding a California law that protects freedom of the press in public schools even more strongly than the constitutional rights guaranteed under the First Amendment.

Tuesday's Supreme Court order, which also denied a hearing sought by the Novato Unified School District, means that students in California "will be able to publish very controversial political opinions without fearing retribution," said Paul Beard of the Pacific Legal Foundation, a lawyer for the student who wrote the editorial.

After some students and parents protested High school senior Andrew Smith’s editorial, school district officials pulled remaining copies of the newspaper out of circulation and sent a letter to parents saying the editorial shouldn't have been published.

Along with his father, Smith sued in Marin County Superior Court, claiming that the district had illegally censored the piece and subjected him to public reprimand for expressing unpopular positions.

A judge dismissed the suit, noting that the editorial had been published and that the student hadn't been disciplined. But the First District Court of Appeal said the district had violated Smith's rights by confiscating the paper and sending the message to parents.

The appeals court said state law guarantees freedom of the press on campus unless an article is obscene or libelous, or unless it creates a clear and present danger of lawbreaking or disorder on campus.

The school district "succumbed to the fear of disruption and discontent" when it removed the newspaper from circulation, the state court said. Smith was awarded $1 and a declaration that his rights had been violated.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1988 that public school officials could censor student newspapers and remove sensitive topics without violating the First Amendment. California, however, is one of about a half-dozen states with laws that explicitly protect student expression even if it is controversial.

If a school nurse or family member is unavailable, then a volunteer can be trained to administer the insulin injection. A shortage of California school nurses and liability concerns about training non medical staff could stall the effects of the settlement.

According to a recent article in the Press Enterprise, “… the California School Nurses Organization sent a letter advising school nurses to seek guidance from district lawyers before proceeding. Executive Director Nancy Spradling said nurses were concerned about losing their licenses should they train non-medical staff.”

The Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund reports that the settlement includes the following provisions:
• Districts cannot centralize diabetes-related services at one school. They must be
available at every school.
• Districts must identify and evaluate diabetic students.
• Financial burden is no defense for not providing services.
• If no school nurse or authorized personnel is available, a volunteer with adequate
training can administer insulin.

The question remains: Will the California School Nurses Organization assist in the implementation of this settlement of choose another path?

In Madden vs. Del Taco, Patrick Madden claimed he fell from his wheelchair and was injured when he attempted to pass a concrete trash barrel on a ramp leading to an entrance to a Del Taco restaurant. The obstruction had forced him to navigate his wheelchair to enter the restaurant. Unfortunately, the walkway was too narrow with the addition of the trash barrel and Plaintiff’s wheelchair went off the curb. Madden fell over and out of the chair, injuring himself as a result. Del Taco moved for summary judgment and, in so doing, claimed that the trash barrel was merely a temporary obstruction which was moved to a wider portion of the ramp immediately following the incident. In addition, the store had another entrance which presented no obstructions. Based upon this showing, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Del Taco.

The Court of Appeal reversed. It found the presence of the trash container to be a prima facie violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which provides that no individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations of any place of public accommodation. Such a violation was also a violation of the Unruh Act (Civil Code § 54) which guarantees individuals with disabilities to have the same right as the general public to the full and free use of public places.

The Court of Appeal observed the requirements of ADA extend beyond the initial construction or alterations of existing structures. Indeed, it imposes a duty to remove any barrier to access, where removal is readily achievable. The ADA does not make any distinction between temporary or permanent obstructions to access hence, the placement of a concrete trash barrel, even if temporary, is a prima facie violation of ADA and the Unruh Act where a disabled person is hindered in his or her access to the premises.

Rebekah Rice sought damages after being disciplined, then ridiculed, for using the phrase "that's so gay" at Maria Carillo High School in Santa Rosa. Superior Court Judge Elaine Rushing ruled that school administrators did not single Rebekah Rice out for punishment, nor did they break any laws when they disciplined her for using the phrase "that's so gay" in response to students who were teasing her about her Mormon upbringing.

Superior Court Judge Elaine Rushing: "All of us have probably felt at some time that we were unfairly punished by a callous teacher, or picked on and teased by boorish and uncaring bullies. Unfortunately, this is part of what teenagers endure in becoming adults. The law, with all its majesty and might, is simply too crude and imprecise an instrument to satisfactorily soothe deeply hurt feelings."

Additionally, Judge Rushing also rejected the claim that the school refused to protect Rebekah from teasing about her Mormon religion. In an unusual move, Judge Rushing admonished the family for aggravating Rebekah’s situation, stating "If the Rice family had not told everyone that Rebekah had been given a referral for saying 'That's so gay' then no one else would have know it either, and she would not have been referred to as the 'That's so gay girl.'"

It’s good to see the judiciary rule in favor of the rules and laws which California school districts must follow. It is outstanding to see a judge hold parents accountable for exacerbating a minor school discipline issue and escalating it to a lawsuit.

As a law firm that deals in school district litigation and lawsuits regularly, this was truly a notable ruling.

February 20, 2015 11:53 AMLos Angeles Unified School District Attorneys to Help Students Facing DeportationImmigration issues are nothing new in the U.S. In the Los Angeles Unified School District, officials and teachers have long dealt with students who may not have been in the country legally. The LAUSD is the second largest school district in the nation. This fact, coupled with California's high immigrant population . . .

November 25, 2014 4:58 AMHappy Thanksgiving from Sylvester Oppenheim & LindeWe at Sylvester Oppenheim & Linde would like to take a moment to wish our clients, family and friends (including our blog readers), a very joyous and happy Thanksgiving.
Whether you are celebrating with a small gathering, or preparing for what is shaping up to be dinner for a small country, we wish you and yours all the very best.

October 31, 2014 1:50 PMNevada Parents Sue School District Over Failure to Report Bullying Nevada parents Jennifer and Jason Lamberth thought everything was going well with their 13 year-old daughter, Hailee. She was enrolled as a seventh grader at White Middle School in Henderson. The day that her life came to a tragic end, she had been named . . .